Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 7075

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. BusterD (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7075

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This galaxy is not notable, all of the references are to catalog entries. Parejkoj (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some commentary beyond catalogue entries about this galaxy here: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/4/5719/5923577?login=false , https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/489/3/3739/5554765?login=false and https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/484/3/4239/5299582?login=false. The radio source accociated with the galaxy is descripted in a more than a passing reference in a table here https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/282/1/40/1036079?login=false. It is a keep for me. --C messier (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those papers are about the galaxy itself, they just have some paragraphs discussing it. That's pretty weak notability at best. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still these are multiple sources that provide commentary that is more than a trivial mention. The ALMA series is quite low volume, only discussing a dozen objects at most, including this particular galaxy. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material WP:SIGCOV. C messier (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:NASTRO we presume notability because it was discovered before 1850 but a careful investigation may show that it is not notable. Even if we discover sufficient references to meet our notability critera we may go on to decide there should not be an article on this galaxy. I hope that is completely clear! Thincat (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it might not be notable, we can redirect this galaxy to Lists of NGC Objects (7000-7800) as an alternative like NGC 1016, NGC 4 and NGC 529.--Galaxybeing (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per C messier with more than trivial coverage. Otherwise redirect to Lists of NGC Objects (7000-7800) as an ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The galaxy meets WP:NASTCRIT criteria #3 and #4, being covered in at least two academic works, and having been discovered before 1850. Owen× ☎ 06:12, 9 September 2024 (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.