Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/208P/McMillan

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 redirect‎ to List of numbered comets. RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

208P/McMillan[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only coverage is from databases and the announcements about the discoveries[1], the orbital elements[2] and the assosiation with a previous apparition[3] and thus the numbering [4]. They may sound enough, but this is just routine coverage for a numbered comet, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed (eg. it doesn't have a dedicated page in Kronk's cometography). C messier (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Redirect to List of numbered comets. --C messier (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of numbered comets. Does not appear to be enough reliable source text to justify a stand-alone article. --Jayron 32 18:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. C messier (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of numbered comets where it is mentioned: there is not enough evidence online to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 06:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.