Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOH S264

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=WOH S264}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=WOH S264}})

Did this get missed in the LMC red supergiant purge? Listing here with the same rationale as WOH S281 and WOH S279. Definitely does not meet WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article relies on a single large-scale survey to establish notability as an extremely large star. Lithopsian (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

:*Delete per nom. I could find no significant coverage in sources. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

:*Neutral fresh from the printing house, [https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/01/aa43394-22/aa43394-22.html this publication] goes more in depth that the large scale surveys (the star is mentioned as LMC3), although the depth of coverage is still not particularly deep. However, it characterises it as "the most remarkable object in the sample" and that "further investigation is needed". --C messier (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

:*Neutral As C messier said, it is considered the most remarkable object in the sample, although notability is still questionable because there is not so much significant coverage. The star has also been noted to be one of most luminous and largest stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud and has even been compared to WOH G64, another extreme red supergiant. The authors of the paper have also mentioned that they will give more detail to the star in a future study, if the paper gets published, this could establish notability on the basis of a whole dedicated paper.SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

:* Comment: I do not support a keep because there is currently not enough WP:SIGCOV from sources to establish notability yet. However I also oppose deletion because it is likely that notability will be established by new sources in the future. Therefore the best option would be to do some sort of WP:ATD to keep the page history in some form without keeping something that does not meet notability guidelines. I cannot think of a suitable merge or redirect target, and transwiki is not an option, so that leaves draftification. I think the article could possibly be kept as a {{tl|Promising draft}} so that new sources can be added to establish notability when they come out, and the draft can then be moved back to mainspace. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting to check whether or not there is any more support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

:*Draftify as a {{tl|Promising draft}} per above comments. We'll likely want this article in the near future and will then have the refs to justify keeping. Why start all over?

::--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

::*Draftify per my above comment before the relist notices. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

:*Draftify There will probably be significant coverage in the near future. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.