Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDF 7: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:14, 6 January 2017

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 7

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

Not significant by WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage, no claims of significance. In fact all I could find were two entries in lists of related objects. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 galaxy out of the 200 billion known galaxies out there. Not notable Grammarphile (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge into a relevant parent article. It's millions of stars, I can't imagine that there isn't something notable in there that eventually will be added. South Nashua (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Regarding the 'keep or merge' vote above, we cannot presume that this object will eventually become notable at some point in the indefinite future. If this were the standard, we would have hundreds of millions of stubs about nearly every known astronomical object, merely duplicating basic information from astronomical catalogues (see WP:NOT). This is exactly why the notability criteria of WP:NASTRO exist, and I concur with the nominator's application of that policy to this object. It (1) is not visible to the unaided eye and has never been so, (2) is not in a catalogue of interest to amateur astronomers or a catalogue of historical interest, (3) has not been the subject of in-depth attention in reliable secondary sources, and (4) was discovered after 1850. Thus, it fails WP:NASTRO. Astro4686 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single paper on google scholar that mentions this object. Therefore, not notable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2017 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was '''delete'''.  [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&hearts;</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">&diams;</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">&clubs;</font>]] &spades; 05:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 ===[[:UDF 7]]===
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}
 :{{la|UDF 7}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDF 7|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 29#{{anchorencode:UDF 7}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UDF_7 Stats]</span>)
@@ Line 12: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Delete.''' Per nom. Regarding the 'keep or merge' vote above, we cannot presume that this object will eventually become notable at some point in the indefinite future. If this were the standard, we would have hundreds of millions of stubs about nearly every known astronomical object, merely duplicating basic information from astronomical catalogues (see [[WP:NOT]]). This is exactly why the notability criteria of [[WP:NASTRO]] exist, and I concur with the nominator's application of that policy to this object. It (1) is not visible to the unaided eye and has never been so, (2) is not in a catalogue of interest to amateur astronomers or a catalogue of historical interest, (3) has not been the subject of in-depth attention in reliable secondary sources, and (4) was discovered after 1850. Thus, it fails [[WP:NASTRO]]. [[User:Astro4686|Astro4686]] ([[User talk:Astro4686|talk]]) 07:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' I can't find a single paper on google scholar that mentions this object. Therefore, not notable. [[User:Isambard Kingdom|Isambard Kingdom]] ([[User talk:Isambard Kingdom|talk]]) 22:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
+{{clear}}
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>