Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V1749 Cygni

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V1749 Cygni[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. Far below naked eye visibility, no publications specific to this star, although it is included in several papers containing lists of red supergiants. Lithopsian (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Searching finds very little. Not notable per GNG or WP:NASTRO. MB 03:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this source fulfill WP:NASTRO as "significant commentary"? It's mentioned 12 times in the body, only once in a list, and once in the abstract. Ioaxxere (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primarily attracts notice in survey and catalog-type papers. Only one paper (linked by User:Ioaxxere above and in the article) that has analyzed star and even that as a member of a group of 60. Does not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Eggishorn and Lithopsian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMathews (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 December 2016 (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.