Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SW Aquarii


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

SW Aquarii

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Comment: I'm on the fence about this one. There are quite a few scholarly studies that include this star with two that mention it in their abstract. Praemonitus (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The articles in the google scholar page only include it as one of dozens (or more) stars that were observed. The other two studies are from the same source, and neither indicate a special interest in this star. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's a weak article as it stands and we can always re-create it if dedicated studies become available. Praemonitus (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources by Praemonitus. -- cyclopia speak! 13:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - See my comment above. No special attention is given to this object in the aforementioned sources. It fails the GNG test, and the criteria from Notability (astronomical objects). Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * GNG does not require any "special attention", it only requires sources discuss the topic in depth enough that no original research is required.-- cyclopia speak! 11:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * GNG requires significant coverage, which is not met in any of the sources provided. Having parameters listed in a table, but not having any more depth than that, is not significant coverage, and specifically doesn't meet the criteria of NASTRO, which is what I was referring to. Please describe, from the above sources, or any others that you can find, coverage that is deeper than a table listing from a survey paper. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As these sources allow the building of a neutral, sourced encyclopedia article, and as they show the subject of the article has been studied multiple times by the academic community, I think they are enough, per the sense of our guidelines. I understand you disagree, that's fine. -- cyclopia speak! 14:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not merely disagreeing on an interpretation of our guideline. The notability criteria for astronomical objects is quite clear that significant coverage should be available, and even listings among multiple publications don't count for this. I'll agree that taken together, these sources could help build a "neutral, sourced" table of physical parameters, but we shouldn't kid ourselves that an article can be made beyond a stub. This is precisely why there's a notability guideline in place for astronomical objects. Millions of stars and galaxies have had their physical parameters measured, and multiple published large-scale surveys will list this raw data, but that doesn't mean they each deserve a stand-alone article. I'll ask again, can you articulate a case for this specific object that will help it meet the criteria of NASTRO? I'm willing to give each object that comes up in these debates the benefit of the doubt, and I come to a conclusion only after a careful examination of the sources themselves. Would you concede that perhaps merely being listed a paper's data table, but having no other commentary, is not enough to establish notability? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you concede that perhaps merely being listed a paper's data table, but having no other commentary, is not enough to establish notability? - Given that I consider this interpretation of notability -in the specific case of natural objects where a completely meaningful article can be built from data scattered in various papers- contrary to our aim as an encyclopedia, I do not concede that. Guidelines are meant to meet the occasional exception and be applied with common sense. I think NASTRO fails in not taking into account these cases, and should therefore be put aside when it damages the project. -- cyclopia speak! 21:31, 15 October 2013 (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.