Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SN 1961i


 * 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. North America1000 18:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SN 1961i

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note, and not discovered before 1850. Article was dePRODed with the rationale that it was the first type II supernova, but this is blatantly false (e.g. SN 1961f was a type II supernova). StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect to Messier 61. Apparently Zwicki considered it a prototype of "spectral type III" supernovae. But there isn't much else to add. Praemonitus (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a special supernovae. It is a type III, and the only type of its kind so we should keep it and maybe expand it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am. furhan. (talk • contribs)
 * Note that Type III is a defunct type; it's now considered to be just a peculiar Type II. Praemonitus (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that its historical role as the prototypical (and only?) member of type III gives it notability even though that classification has become obsolete. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , wouldn't it make more sense to merge the article to Supernova if that's the case, rather than keeping an article which can't really be expanded beyond a database entry? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2015 (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.