User talk:ST11/CarloscomB cleanup

3C 215 & 3C 319 Notability

I need a second opinion on apparent notability. While going through the 3C's, I typically found at least a few google scholar hits with the object's name in the title. Scholar searches for 3C 215 & 3C 319 don't have any papers focusing specifically on them, so I'm wondering, should I send them to AfD? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 22:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For 3C 319, I found [1], which I think is enough for notability. For 3C 215, I'm not as sure. There's several studies involving it ([2], [3], [4]), but they're all group studies. Together, I think they're just enough for notability, though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New page? Neither seem notable to me. Very faint, not apparently unique in any way, and little or no research beyond an identification. I wouldn't press for them to be deleted, but I wouldn't put any effort into creating them if they didn't exist. Lithopsian (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frustrating ain't it? Of all the objects without articles there are many still uncreated that are interesting and well-studied...and he chose all these ones. Although the odd one here or there looks like it's got some expanding potential.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Absmag error

What he's done here is assume the B value on SIMBAD is the absolute magnitude...which it isn't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]