- 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
NGC 529
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- NGC 529 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable as only sources mentioned it (outside of [1]) are catalogues and tables. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. See WP:NASTRO, which specifically lists the NGC catalog as being of sufficient importance that objects in it are considered notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aldebarium ( talk) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment
WP:NASTRO contains many suggestions on how to determine if an object is notable, but doesn't determine notability. See the note at the bottom of the criteria section:
This object fails general notability criteria as there isn't significant coverage of it in any sources (that I could find, at least). Sam-2727 ( talk) 00:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Note 1: These criteria do not supersede WP:NOTABILITY, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of astronomical objects.
- Keep. unfortunately sourcing is tricky for many astronomical objects and becomes an amalgam of many brief mentions in articles with large numbers of objects. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ Casliber:, could you expand on your reasoning for why this article still meets the general notability requirements? I'm not sure I completely understand your point. Sam-2727 ( talk) 03:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- because many many astronomical objects are covered fleetingly in anywhere up to 100 papers each. So they have bene studied in passing to build up a composite picture of them. This is radically different to other items, which are covered in detail in fewer sources. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
NGC 529
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- NGC 529 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable as only sources mentioned it (outside of [1]) are catalogues and tables. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 ( talk) 16:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. See WP:NASTRO, which specifically lists the NGC catalog as being of sufficient importance that objects in it are considered notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aldebarium ( talk) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment
WP:NASTRO contains many suggestions on how to determine if an object is notable, but doesn't determine notability. See the note at the bottom of the criteria section:
This object fails general notability criteria as there isn't significant coverage of it in any sources (that I could find, at least). Sam-2727 ( talk) 00:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Note 1: These criteria do not supersede WP:NOTABILITY, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of astronomical objects.
- Keep. unfortunately sourcing is tricky for many astronomical objects and becomes an amalgam of many brief mentions in articles with large numbers of objects. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @ Casliber:, could you expand on your reasoning for why this article still meets the general notability requirements? I'm not sure I completely understand your point. Sam-2727 ( talk) 03:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- because many many astronomical objects are covered fleetingly in anywhere up to 100 papers each. So they have bene studied in passing to build up a composite picture of them. This is radically different to other items, which are covered in detail in fewer sources. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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.