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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AT 2018pw[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. A quick WP:BEFORE doesn't pick up anything except mention of it's existence. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: existence isn't sufficient. WP:NASTRO, particularly WP:NASTCRIT, isn't met by this object (yet, who knows one day). There are thousands of supernovae discovered every year and there is nothing exceptional about this one. Lithopsian (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AT 2018pw is a very good supernova candidate. Awvazquez (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:NASTRO. SportingFlyer (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably a bit early for much to have been published on this yet. But it probably will later. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Not enough information published to make a meaningful article, at least yet. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:26, 22 February 2018 (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.