Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASS 1507-1627
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- 2MASS 1507-1627 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · 1507-1627 Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:NASTRO. No references, no claims to notability. Regards— ~ The Infinite Space X 18:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep. WP:NASTRO recognizes notability if an astronomical object has received non-trivial coverage from multiple published works. I searched NASA's Astrophysics Data System to see whether this object has received attention in the scholarly literature. It is mentioned in 3 abstracts, two of which are refereed papers. The third is a paper from a conference. Of the two refereed papers, one clearly examines it in detail, but in the other, it's just one of 14 objects studied. It's a close call, but I think that this is just barely enough to satisfy WP:NASTRO. Here is my search query, along with the results. Astro4686 (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree, it's weak, but I'd consider this sufficiently non-trivial coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Find some sources. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.