Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M104 group of galaxies


 * 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 redirect to Sombrero Galaxy. JPD (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

M104 group of galaxies
This object may not exist. A detailed explaination is presented on the Sombrero Galaxy page under "Environment". Basically, some papers using one group identification method have determined that M104 is part of a group (references include the Nearby Galaxy Catalogue by B. Tully, Groups of galaxies within 80 Mpc. II - The catalogue of groups and group members by P. Fouque et al., and Nearby Optical Galaxies: Selection of the Sample and Identification of Groups by G. Giuricin et al.) whereas other group identification methods have determined that M104 is not (references include General study of group membership. II - Determination of nearby groups by A. Garcia and Nearby Optical Galaxies: Selection of the Sample and Identification of Groups by G. Giuricin et al.). The creator of the article used this page within the Atlas of the Universe website to create this page but misunderstood the reference, which did not place M104 within a group. The Atlas of the Universe website itself does not definitively state whether M104 belongs in a group; two different pages within it contain contradictory information. (Note that the Atlas of the Universe website uses the Tully, Fouque et al., Garcia, and Giuricin et al. references given above. The original references are more useful than the Atlas of the Universe website.)  Since it is unclear as to whether a "M104 group" exists and since this is already discussed thoroughly in the Sombrero Galaxy article, the M104 group of galaxies article should be deleted. George J. Bendo 10:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect If its discussed thoroughly elsewhere than the article should point in that direction/ --Spartaz 10:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect the whole group of galaxies (presumably to Sombrero Galaxy). Could we relocate them as well?    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirecting M104 group of galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would be OK, but the other galaxies in the tenuously-identified group should be left unchanged. NGC 4487, NGC 4504, NGC 4802, and UGCA 289 are different objects from the Sombrero Galaxy; redirecting searches on those galaxies to the Sombrero Galaxy would give the incorrect impression that those galaxies' names are valid names for the Sombrero Galaxy and would thus cause confusion. George J. Bendo 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since those articles don't exist, it shouldn't be a problem. Yomangani talk 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - the Sombrero Galaxy article discusses whether that galaxy should be regarded as being in a group - it isn't directly analogous to this article as it has no discussion of the legitimacy of the "M104 group" title. Redirecting would not be correct as it would suggest that the M104 group was a recognised entity (plus it has no main space links and isn't a likely search term anyway). There may be a possibility for a valid article about the existence of an M104 group to be created, but this article is poorly titled, uncited and factually lacking. Yomangani talk 14:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given above. (I should have voted earlier.  I guess it is implicit in the nomination, but it is good to be explicit.) George J. Bendo 14:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect if the topic may be looked up by someone, we should point to a place where the existence is disputed, otherwise, the article will probably just get created again in the future. This way we keep the history of why no article. WilliamKF 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sombrero Galaxy per WilliamKF. Chaos syndrome 19:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WilliamKF.--Planetary 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. We are not yet become Binky, destroyer of galaxies. Grutness...wha?  01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect somebody could redirect this into Sombrero Galaxy or Destroyer of galaxies. That would be good ideas to redirect into those two I've mentioned. Daniel's page    ☎  01:47, 2 September 2006 (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.