Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CX CMa


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

CX CMa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Its been tagged to death, but apparently abandoned by the original author. Much of the article is incomprehensible, or likely wrong. It is a faint eclipsing binary star, one of hundreds of the type,. It is not contained in the list of stars in Canis Major, or the template for stars of Canis Major, a big clue that this is not a notable object per WP:NASTRO. Simbad lists nine papers mentioning the star, an astonishingly low number. Even more astonishingly, four of them are about either this star or a small number of objects including this star. There was a flurry of interest in 1984 that the light curve of some eclipsing variables showed an interesting asymmetry, refuted a few years later. Lithopsian (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC) I have edited the article, hopefully improving it in the process. As for the O'Connell effect that Lithopsian apparently means: I have not found a refutation of it, rather there is a variety of explanations for this observed phenomenon. It might be worth a separate article. Aside from that, I believe that the article "CX CMa" should be renamed into "CX Canis Majoris" in order to keep in line with other articles on stars. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly if the article is kept, it should be renamed as suggested. The article is now a passable stub rather than a half-nonsense mash-up. Still not notable, though ;)  Lithopsian (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A final relist will hopefully bring further discussion to reach a consensus. &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: based upon three publications that include the object's name in their titles, it appears to just satisfy the WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2016 (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.