Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SN 2023rve


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  02:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

SN 2023rve

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. It happened, with the usual announcements, but beyond that there is nothing especially noteworthy about this one of several thousand supernovae discovered so far this year. It was moderately bright, but not exceptionally so. I suggest returning to the original redirect, to the host galaxy, where it is already mentioned as one of four supernovae observed in that galaxy. Lithopsian (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Please review recently located sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the brightest one in the sky now. Also, it is seventh brightest one in 2023 (see this link: https://www.rochesterastronomy.org/sn2023/snmag.html).
 * If it should be deleted, then the following pages must be deleted as well, as this one is at least brighter than all those three.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1992bd
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1999eu
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_2003B Odehjas (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The biggest frog in the pod isn't a valid argument, and so the brightest supernova in the sky now isn't a criterion of notability, and neither is the existence of similar articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The only criterion by which the notability can be judged is the existence of significant commentary by published sources. There is very little coverage about this SN in english, as I found only an image caption, but there is some interest in arab language news sites (eg. ), so IMHO it is notable. C messier (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a quick Google search and I could find many pages are talking about it as well (eg., , , , , , , , , , , , ). Also, "Bright Supernova" webiste created a dedictaed page for this supernova at . 92.99.18.108 (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also this page 92.99.18.108 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't say this often but we need some more "Votes" on what should happen with this article. If you think it should be Redirected, please provide the target article. Be specific and direct. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: it is a very recent event, so it's possible we may see more detailed studies on this object at a later date. Praemonitus (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Doing a Google Searcy gives us a hint that this supernova is not similar to the ordinary ones which are being discovered on a daily basis. A lot of observations, images and photometric observations are being done for this one, and some discussions and articles were written about it (such as the ones mentioned in the reply on 14:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) ). I do see it is a notable one. 185.66.18.93 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This supernova is featured now in NASA's APOD website at: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap231011.html . In the description, NASA is referring to this page as well. I vote in favor of keeping this page. 185.66.18.93 (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to say how awesome it is that we've found so many supernovae that they're no longer notable by default. DS (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the sources found since nomination. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2023 (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.