Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 95338


 * 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 userfy. I'm comfortable that there is a consensus to userfy the contents of the article taking into account that the concerns raised by those for deletion may be overcome in (hopefully not too much) time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

HD 95338

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. Prior to 2020, this star clearly didn't meet WP:NASTCRIT. Now there is a preprint paper, not yet accepted for publication. Even accepting the preprint, notability is somewhat flimsy, presumably based on having a slightly odd planet. Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree what HD 95338 contents do not meet notability criteria in WP:NASTCRIT, but should notice the situation is typical for most newly discovered planetary systems, while i cannot find any criteria applicable to HD 95338 in WP:TOOSOON. Also, the WP:NASTCRIT notability criteria for HD 95338 will be meet in future after 2nd publication. 2nd publication is virtually certain given solid observational evidence in preprint and somewhat anomalous nature of planet HD 95338 b mandating follow-up study in years to come. Formally, i.m.h.o. deletion proposal falls to Overzealous_deletion case. Trurle (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete While maybe WP:TOOSOON isn't the correct deletion criteria, I do agree with the general assertion of Lithopsian that this should be deleted. Even assuming the preprint is published, this is only one published source and as far as I can tell there aren't anymore. Thus, this doesn't meet general notability criteria. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a reason this has no entry at List of stars in Vela? Doesn't seem like there's an WP:LSC bar to inclusion there and an entry exists in Template:Stars of Vela, unless there's some WP:ASTRO discussion I'm unaware of that dictates otherwise. Initial analysis is that it seems like a very small amount of this should be smerged to the list with a possible spin-out later if multiple publications eventually end up providing SIGCOV.  S p e c t r u m   UV 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum Pinging it looks like everyone agrees that WP:NASTCRIT controls and is not presently met. A possible WP:ATD here would be to Userfy as one of your subpages in the interim until the criteria are met, you could continue to work on it there, and it saves you a later trip to refund. Material could still copied to the list as long as WP:CWW was adhered to.   S p e c t r u m   UV 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. Added HD 95338 to the List of stars in Vela. Regarding proposal to userfy HD 95338, it may be ok. Waiting for consensus.Trurle (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Userfy per discussion above.  S p e c t r u m   UV 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Userfy Does not currently meet notability criteria. Regarding the comment above of "2nd publication is virtually certain given solid observational evidence", the topic needs to establish notability based on current sources, not future ones. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)


 * 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.