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.
Not notable per
WP:NASTRO. No references, no claims to notability. Regards— ~The InfiniteSpaceX 18:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Keep. I agree, it's weak, but I'd consider
this sufficiently non-trivial coverage. ~
Anachronist (
talk) 02:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)reply
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.