Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDF 542

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. T. Canens (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UDF 542

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

No obvious significance. A search of google scholar for "UDF 542" and "Hubble" comes up with absolutely nothing. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, one of many faint galaxies in the UDF catalogue with no specific publications to incur significance (WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UDF 542 seems to be listed in Hubble Ultra Deep Field Catalog (UDF) (STScI, 2004). Check the image titled F775W and F850LP. Here's the main id of UDF 542 and the corresponding image in the NASA database. And here's the entry for UDF 542 in the Space Telescope Science Institute's database (the institute that manages and operates Hubble). This seems to qualify on NASTCRIT#2 criterion. Lourdes 05:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but simply being on a long, long list of objects that can only be seen in the most advanced telescopes does not make this object of interest to amateur astronomers, which is what NASTCRIT#2 specifies. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I understand. That's one reason I've been ping-ponging between comment and keep. Thanks for your note. Lourdes 17:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but by criterion 2 (which you cite), it would be deleted, certainly. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NASTRO. 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. As for the discussion above, the UDF catalogue is just one of thousands available to astronomers. Astro4686 (talk) 07:32, 15 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.