Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOH G17


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

WOH G17

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

PROD removed with the contention that this *may* meet WP:GNG. It doesn't. Also fails WP:NASTRO. As per the PROD, the article was created on the weak assumption that this was an exceptionally large star, as shown in a database rather blindly assuming it was an LMC star rather than a more conventional foreground object. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep @Lithospian, you seem to be one of the primary authors who made most of the contributions to this page. Someone else proded it, but you took it upon yourself to AfD it? Why? you are unhappy with your work? What made you change your mind? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't create it. I tried to improve it but at the end of the day it still doesn't meet the grade.  I felt the PROD was appropriate and was disappointed to see it rejected on such weak grounds.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry my WP:DEPROD was disappointing. I was under the impression this was reported as one of the largest known stars. That's not correct but I assumed the claim and the correction may have garnered enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I apologize that, since we have only 7 days to review and WP:PRODPATROL is understaffed, I don't have time to do comprehensive research on all the PRODS I review. Thanks for bringing this to WP:AFD for discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you summarised it very well. The article claimed the star was one of the largest known, but nobody else ever really made that claim and it very probably isn't true.  Just an outlier in a large dataset with limited sanity checking.  Lithopsian (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly is not notable for the reasons I mentioned when I proposed it for deletion.  SpaceImplorer ExplorerImplorer   (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per nom and SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer. The weak keep vote should be discounted about because it gives no reasoning besides asking the nom questions. Should have been a comment instead. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: it is clear that the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. The weak assumption that this was an extremely large star is likely untrue, and even if there is merit to it there is still no WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: This isn't notable at all. No WP:SIGCOV. CastJared (talk) 11:17, 17 June 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.