Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEA J120037.79-784508.3


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

WISEA J120037.79-784508.3

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

This object does not seem to meet the notability guideline for astronomical objects. I cannot find any sources with significant coverage besides the discovery paper or press releases directly based on that paper. Complex / Rational 14:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be a useful article about an interesting (to some) object. The 'Discovery of a Nearby Young Brown Dwarf Disk' study has since been cited by three other studies: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020AJ....160..156S/citations Additional info on the initial discovery can be found in this SciNews article: https://www.sci.news/astronomy/young-brown-dwarf-circumstellar-disk-08496.html. For instance, the study has been presented at the 236th Meeting of the American Astronomical Society. Richard Nowell (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The SciNews article is based on a discovery report by the authors of the discovery paper (Schutte et al., 2020), so I don't believe it qualifies as an independent source for establishing notability. Complex / Rational  16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, searching for the name W1200-7845 i found a lot of sources about this object:     , and there are many more. Celestial bodies that received attention by media are generally considered notable. According to WP:NASTRO, Astronomical objects are notable if they have received substantial attention and coverage in reliable sources, usually the scientific literature and/or popular media. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think articles published on, for example, the websites NASA or MIT pass paragraph 3 of 'Criteria' as they are non-trivial sources WP:NASTCRIT. Richard Nowell (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per @InTheAstronomy32 and @Richard Nowell explanations. Object restricted to just a small cycle of specialists, but is duly supported by studies and publications. Svartner (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2024 (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.