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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

V2295 Ophiuchi[edit]

V2295 Ophiuchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article only really exists because an article about the more famous GRO J1719-24 was mistakenly created with this name. Other than the flurry of discovery reports, there is virtually no research dedicated to this object and it seems destined to be forever a tiny stub. Lithopsian (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yeah I agree, I couldn't find anything about this object. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 18:33, 2 February 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.