Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOH S281

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WOH S281[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)

Definitely does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article only relies on a single source (excluding its SIMBAD entry), that itself is a large-scale survey and does not establish notability. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 19:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: no hits on Google Scholar ([1], [2]), cited journal article ([3]) doesn't appear to even mention it, based on my control-f search, other coverage is in routine databases/surveys or in mirrors/forks of Wikipedia. Fails WP:NASTRO. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 15:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Article briefly PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I guess. Seems a pity, but as noted above there just isn't much to work with here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:18, 26 June 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.