Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VV Corvi

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VV Corvi

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than a simple database entry; studied in multiple academic papers cited in the article; perfectly encyclopedic and clear-cut article with information gathered from multiple neutral, reliable sources, meets the spirit of our notability guidelines. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided in the article aren't enough, but I did some more digging, and have found dozens of studies that include this star (SIMBAD returns 35, but I found more through NASA ADS). Many of them provide more than a passing mention in a list of raw data, though it's surprising that it doesn't get much more than a few sentences of commentary in a single paper. Certainly, I haven't found a singular study. It is an Algol-style variable star, with multiple components (probably more than the 2 mentioned in this WP article). This complicates locating studies in articles, as it has so many designations, and not all of them are consistent. However, it is visible to the naked eye (barely), so it does meet criteria 1 of NASTRO. It also meets criteria 4, as [Zasche] reports that observations of the star go back 180 years. This article will take a lot of legwork and expert attention to develop beyond a stub, but I think it is possible. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I missed the fact that it's visible to the naked eye. I withdraw the nomination then. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:50, 16 October 2013 (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.