Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SBSS 0953+549: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→SBSS 0953+549: Reply |
→SBSS 0953+549: - still not notable |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
** Ah, okay. Perhaps then it should be renamed "SBS 0953+549" since that gets more ghits? [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 13:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
** Ah, okay. Perhaps then it should be renamed "SBS 0953+549" since that gets more ghits? [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 13:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
**:I'm not sure which is the more common abbreviation. The publications suggest SBS but simbad say it is SBSS. [[User:C messier|C messier]] ([[User talk:C messier|talk]]) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
**:I'm not sure which is the more common abbreviation. The publications suggest SBS but simbad say it is SBSS. [[User:C messier|C messier]] ([[User talk:C messier|talk]]) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Two papers with 9 total citations does not make an object notable. If the only non-survey papers about this are from 30 or 50 years ago, it's not that interesting; essentially all of the text on the new page is summaries of catalog information. - [[User:Parejkoj|Parejkoj]] ([[User talk:Parejkoj|talk]]) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:10, 25 June 2024
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- SBSS 0953+549 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another non-notable astronomical object, and the article itself is rather incoherent. All of the references but one are to catalog papers, and that one is a study of three quasars in 1986. The text is not well formed English, it has sections irrelevant to the article itself (Galaxy companions is about galaxies that have nothing to do with SBSS 0953+549 except vague proximity on sky), and the text is mostly generalities based on those catalog papers. User:Galaxybeing continues to create pages like this that are non-notable and just lists of information from catalogs in paragraph form. Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes, this appears to be a discussion of data entries from various surveys. 2-3 million of these objects have been discovered, so they are a dime a dozen. I couldn't find any substantial coverage, and there's nothing to distinguish this quasar in some way so that we could add it to List of quasars. Praemonitus (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep This quasar has been the subject of at least two studies [1][2], and there is also some commentary here [3]. These are enough to fullfil the criteria. --C messier (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Perhaps then it should be renamed "SBS 0953+549" since that gets more ghits? Praemonitus (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which is the more common abbreviation. The publications suggest SBS but simbad say it is SBSS. C messier (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Perhaps then it should be renamed "SBS 0953+549" since that gets more ghits? Praemonitus (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Two papers with 9 total citations does not make an object notable. If the only non-survey papers about this are from 30 or 50 years ago, it's not that interesting; essentially all of the text on the new page is summaries of catalog information. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)