Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSR J1856+0245


 * 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 no consensus. To delete, but consensus that, if at all, this should be covered together with Draft:HESS J1857+0263.  Sandstein  09:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

PSR J1856+0245

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As far as I can tell, this fails WP:NASTCRIT, because other than what's in the article the only other related article I can find is, which is really more about HESS J1857+026. Primefac (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a few other articles mentioning this pulsar that are listed here, but there aren't many on this object at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I found a few of those, but the issue is (per CRIT #3) it's being mentioned as part of a general survey of 35 or 200 sources. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * CooperScience, creator of this article says:
 * There's a whole detailed paper about this pulsar that can be found with the following link: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/590908/fulltext/22902.text.html


 * I made this article because there is a lot of information about this pulsar, which is young, energetic, and somewhat unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CooperScience (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete-WP:NOTNOWCurrently it is too early to determine if star is unique or not .May acquire notability latter due to more detailed survey ⭐ FORCE  RADICAL ⭐ @ 07:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nomination. Essentially the only paper about this object is the discovery paper. It is mentioned in a number of other articles as one of many, but that isn't enough to meet WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable and only one paper describes it. Σεμέλη Στεφανίδου (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep  There are actually several papers about this particular pulsar/source, sufficient to pass WP:GNG. This is not just a run of the mill pulsar. It is also known as HESS J1857+026 or HESS J1857+0263 which is a gamma ray source. see https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118685  http://tevcat.uchicago.edu/?mode=1;id=278 https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/pages/home/som/2008/07/ a book paragraph: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jCPn3v-o_KoC&pg=PA205 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So what we really need is an article about HESS J1857+0263? Lithopsian (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To assess Graeme Bartlett's sources - is this simply a case of "topic is better known under a different name"?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's the list of HESS J1857 papers. There are a few more papers specifically on the gamma ray source, as says. I'm not !voting, as I'm not sure where the notability border lies here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess that becomes the issue, though. The PSR seems to be a relatively non-notable pulsar, but the HES associated with it is potentially notable. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, why not have an article on the HESS source, with a subsection on the PSR, and a redirect from the current article title to that subsection? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. I've got some time today, so I'll see about whipping something up. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've created Draft:HESS J1857+0263, and I'm starting to become concerned that it, too, fails WP:NASTCRIT. While the link you give above gives a large number of references, all but three (the current ref in PSR J1856+0245 and the first two refs in the draft) seem to only be [mentions] alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties.... The third ref in the draft is maybe the closest they come to specific coverage, but even that isn't much more than "here are some odd PWNe and some facts about them." Primefac (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For reference, the three sources I'm referring to are, , and , with being the borderline case. I'll keep working on it, and see where the rabbit hole leads. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, those three papers do seem to be the main ones about the source (they're the only ones that mention the source in the title in the list I linked to). Whether enough 3 specific papers + mentions in other papers is enough to determine notability, I don't know. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep.  The existence of several papers is sufficient tojstify the article.  DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I know I keep mentioning this but... which papers? Most of them are about the HESS source (or simply list the PSR in a massive list of similar sources, which contravenes WP:NASTCRIT #3). Primefac (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you're probably right--I forgot. It should be retitled for now at least.  DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 9 June 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.