SBSS 0953+549: All of the references but one are to catalog papers, and that one is a study of three quasars in 1986.  The text is not well formed English, it has sections irrelevant to the article itself (Galaxy companions is about galaxies that have nothing to do with SBSS 0953+549 except vague proximity on sky), and the text is mostly generalities based on those catalog papers.  User:Galaxybeing continues to create pages like this that are non-notable and just lists of information from catalogs in paragraph form.  Parejkoj ( talk ) 18:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Yes, this appears to be a discussion of data entries from various surveys.  2-3 million of these objects have been discovered, so they are a dime a dozen.  I couldn't find any substantial coverage, and there's nothing to distinguish this quasar in some way so that we could add it to List of quasars .  Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This quasar has been the subject of at least two studies [2] [3] , and there is also some commentary here [4] .  These are enough to fullfil the criteria.  -- C messier ( talk ) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, okay.  Perhaps then it should be renamed "SBS 0953+549" since that gets more ghits?  Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure which is the more common abbreviation.  The publications suggest SBS but simbad say it is SBSS.  C messier ( talk ) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Two papers with 9 total citations does not make an object notable.  If the only non-survey papers about this are from 30 or 50 years ago, it's not that interesting; essentially all of the text on the new page is summaries of catalog information.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is no time restriction in the WP:NASTCRIT for the non-trivial published works which contain significant commentary on the object, as per WP:NTEMP .  C messier ( talk ) 10:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Based on checking references in NED, this quasar doesn't really have enough significant coverage for it to be notable.  It's listed in a lot of catalog papers and studies of quasar samples, but as an individual object I don't see evidence of notability.  More generally, there's an issue that User:Galaxybeing has been creating a lot of articles on galaxies and quasars that have very low or marginal notability, and I would argue for deleting most or all of these articles based on low notability and poor quality of information content.  I understand that these articles are being created in good faith and it looks like a lot of effort is going into them, but they are in general articles on objects of very low or marginal notability, and in terms of the content of the articles, the information quality is very poor overall.  These articles include numerous factual errors, irrelevant details, and statements that are written so confusingly as to have no useful meaning.  In this particular article on SBSS 0953 there are whole sentences and paragraphs in the article that just don't make any sense, and scientific terminology is used incorrectly and/or without any context or explanation in a way that isn't appropriate for a WP article.  Unfortunately that is the case for many other articles created by this author.  Aldebarium ( talk ) 20:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This quasar is notable.  I've found one reference which is https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/309595/fulltext/5194.text.html .  This mentions a bit more information of the object since it is of special interest mainly its spectrum shows three strong absorption systems from intervening gas clouds at various redshifts and this the info I left out in the first place.  Rather than deleting it altogether as I see it a step backwards, I suggest this article can be improved instead.  Also I support changing the title to SBS 0953+549 to reflect the name mentioned in research papers.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That paper was published nearly 30 years ago, and is not really about the quasar itself but instead is about a different galaxy discovered because of its proximity to the quasar on the sky.  According to ADS it has been cited 27 times (including citations in non-refereed sources), and by my count, 11 of those citations are self-citations by the authors, leaving just 16 non-self citations in all that time.  And, the most recent citation to that paper was more than a decade ago.  There has been little or no follow-up work on this galaxy at redshift 2.5 since it was discovered 3 decades ago, and it is evidently not an object of any current or recent research interest.  This all gives evidence of a lack of notability.  Back in the mid 1990s finding a single galaxy at redshift 2.5 was still interesting enough to publish a paper about it (although this particular paper has not been a highly cited or influential paper), but by today's standards in the field of galaxy evolution this would not be considered notable at all, and nobody would still use the term "protogalaxy" to describe an object at redshift 2.5 any more.  Moreover, this paper is not about the quasar itself, it is about a galaxy that was found because it just happens to be close to the quasar in projection on the sky.  Today there are vast numbers of quasars known in this redshift range, and by today's standards, the fact that a galaxy was discovered next to a quasar is not in itself sufficiently interesting or notable to justify a WP article about the quasar.  Aldebarium ( talk ) 14:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.  from WP:NTEMP .  C messier ( talk ) 10:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And just I don't see how two papers with very few citations count as "significant coverage".  NASTRO states "multiple non-trivial published works", which isn't really satisfied here.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 16:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] These two papers, published in peer reviewed journals offer significant commentary on the object, that is what significant coverage is about.  There is no indication in the policies that the peer reviewed papers have to have over an arbitrary number of citations to be considered for notability.  As for multiple, it is defined more than one [5] , which is the case here.  C messier ( talk ) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that these papers count as "coverage", but I do not think that they count as "significant coverage" for purposes of notability.  Finding a tiny number of examples of basically forgotten papers from decades ago, that have had extremely few citations and no demonstrable research impact, is not what I would call "significant" coverage.  Even if there's no specific threshold for number of papers or number of citations, the situation here is that the numbers are extremely low by any standard, and there's no evidence that this is an object of any particular interest relative to the hundreds of thousands of other quasars known with basically similar properties.  Aldebarium ( talk ) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most other quasars haven't even been the subject of a dedicated to them paper so this differs, even if there is little research interest after the 90s.  These papers address the topic directly and in detail, as per WP:SIGCOV , being sertainly more than a trivial mention in a table.  C messier ( talk ) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In addition, there are at least a quarter million quasars with intervening absorption systems from eBOSS alone (see Bloomqvist et al. 2019 , so that's definitely not adding any notability.  Galaxybeing : can you help us understand how you picked the objects you picked to make articles for, and how you go about finding sources and writing articles for them?  You say above "I've found one reference...", but that reference is already in the article.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 18:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Most sources don't align with the article's main topic.  For instance, [1] does not explicitly state what SBSS 0953+549, or whatever it is.  If you look at the other sources, you can see that it's just too complicated and unable to be read, and you can't even think about what the information is about because all of the refs are clumped up together, leading to nowhere.  Also, I'm noticing that the refs come from one website with all of the information, so it's practically citing one page to cover the whole article and writing multiple paragraphs that don't have a conclusion.  Comment : I was thinking about redirecting SBSS 0953+549 to List of quasars as SBS 0953+549 since in my opinion, it isn't notable to guarantee its own article since coverage isn't significant enough but it does have a bit of into just to make it a mention as part of the list.  That is what I'm hoping for an alternative to deletion.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 03:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There's really nothing to distinguish this quasar from the roughly million other quasars that are known (e.g. MILLIQUAS .  A redirect makes sense if the object has at least some vague notability, but it doesn't.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that the article suffers from WP:REFBOMB and needs copyedit doesn't mean that it isn't notable.  C messier ( talk ) 08:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] References ^ search_type=Obj_id&objid=21351&objname=5&img_stamp=YES&hconst=73.0&omegam=0.27&omegav=0.73&corr_z=1 "this" .  {{ cite web }} : Check |url= value ( help ) Delete.  ‹ hamster717🐉 › ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠 ) 05:29, 2 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus