Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 1016


 * 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 List of NGC objects (1001–2000). Consensus is that the subject does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and is therefore is not considered notable by the majority of editors. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

NGC 1016

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable galaxy. Source search returns only the typical trivial sources and other mentions in large tables. Following convention of previous NGC object deletion discussions, the article should be redirected to List of NGC objects (1001–2000). I am nominating for deletion since it appears that has contested my redirect. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to delete page NGC 1016. It gives main data and descriptions about this celestial body, and it even shows 2 pictures of this galaxy, so I do not see why this page should be singled out and deleted. What is there against policies and guidelines of Wikipedia?

This astronomical object also meets the 2. criteria for notability / standalone article (as described here: Notability (astronomical objects)), because it is "listed in a catalogue of high historical importance or a catalogues of high interest to amateur astronomers". This object is listed in the famous New General Catalogue.

I really can not see any logic in the initiative started by Sam-2727 to delete this article and replace it with a plain redirect.

Felix558 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Note: Moved from talk page of deletion discussion Sam-2727 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , apologies, I should've been clearer in my reasoning here. The NGC catalog used to be thought of as a catalog of high historical importance. Indeed, when you created this article, it was listed explicitly as such on WP:NASTRO. However, since then, it has been determined that although the NGC catalog might be of high historical importance, it is simply too large to expect an article for every object (see this discussion). While some NGC objects might meet the general criteria (see WP:Notability), i.e. having three or more independent, reliable sources that mention the object significantly, some won't. In this case, I don't believe the object in question meets these criteria, although I would withdraw my nomination for deletion if you provide such sources. The reason I "single out" your article is because I've been going through the list of NGC objects slowly and culling the ones that I don't believe are notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I read the discussion. You were right that there are way more objects in the NGC catalogue than in the Messier catalogue. On the other hand there are countless astronomical objects in the observable Universe, and only about 7000 of them were selected and included in the New General Catalogue - that should make all of them notable, in my opinion. More importantly, we also have this in the 2. criteria for notability / standalone article: "Catalogues of high interest to amateur astronomers". What about that? Astronomical object from the NGC catalogue are frequent targets for amateur astronomers. I also found multiple websites where descriptions of observations / photographs of NGC 1016 made by amateur astronomers can be seen. Felix558 (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While the catalog as a whole is of high amateur interest, as are select objects, individual objects in the catalog aren't necessarily of high amateur interest. Simple pictures of the object aren't indicative of high amateur interest I believe. That would dictate "normal" amateur interest. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: well it's the brightest member of the NGC 1016 galaxy group. Unfortunately the group itself is not particularly significant. All I can find for this galaxy are data entries and a small blurb in a book; no discussion or dedicated studies. By itself it's not very notable. Praemonitus (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Well, if nobody shows up to reinforce my viewpoint here, then I agree with the deletion (since my viewpoint is currently in the minority). Felix558 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. There is decription, the type of galaxy is mentioned. I do not see why this article should be deleted. Кирилл С1 (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * restore to redirect The pictures and the discovery info are the only things that aren't already in the table. It wouldn't be the end of the world to keep this, but there's no claim to general notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It is our policy that, as Wikipedia is not paper, there is no practical limit to the number of articles.  We therefore have no need of a cull of such historical discoveries.  The page in question seems fine and has a nice picture.  Merging it into a long and bloated list would be less practical and so we should leave well alone. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , that reasoning goes against past consensus on astronomy object articles. Another discussion on this is welcome, but we decided that these objects should be removed from the astronomy notability criteria. The reasoning being that there are probably tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of astronomy objects that could rise to this level of notability. See WP:NASTRO: In the sense that an object has been discovered or observed, it may have been noted by a scientist or scientists. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG. No astronomical object is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of object it is. This object does not rise to the level fo WP:GNG, nor does it meet any of the specific criteria at WP:NASTRO. The NGC catalog, due to its large size and to be honest, fairly careless addition of objects, doesn't meet the WP:NASTRO requirements of "high historic importance" (the catalog as a whole is of historical interest as are some individual objects in it, but not every individual object). Sam-2727 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a broader view that SNGs are problematic as they tend to represent local consensus rather than the general readership. The NGC is highly reputable and respectable.  It only contains about 8,000 objects which is tiny compared to the total number out there which is literally astronomical.  We have over six million articles and so this is a negligible increment.  And, as the page already exists, where is the added value in making it disappear?  It's a nonsense and our policies do not support it.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of NGC objects (1001–2000). There's no argument for why this galaxy should be notable, either in the article or in this discussion. We don't keep articles just because there's no lack of space, we keep articles because they're notable. This is just one out of thousands of galaxies in the sky, with no studies or media articles mentioning it specifically. There's not even any information to write about it in the article, other than to note its early discovery. If anybody cares about that it can be added as a footnote in the list. Tercer (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still think it would be wrong to delete this article. It was not only included in the famous NGC catalog, it was also included in several scientific stuides/papers., you wrote "with no studies or media articles mentioning it specifically", but that is not correct. For example, this scientific paper mentions this galaxy specifically on page 7 and in the tables. This published paper is also mentioning it, since the NGC 1016 was analyzed in that research. NGC 1016 was also included in this published paper, and also in this. The book "Proceedings of the 4th Cosmic Physics Conference" is mentioning this galaxy on page 493. Felix558 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out several times, merely being included in the NGC catalog doesn't make an object notable. See the discussion here. Also, per WP:NASTRO being mentioned in a huge table of astronomical objects doesn't make an object notable. The paper needs to actually discuss the object. Your first reference has NGC 1016 only in tables, and in a trivial mention of its properties in the text. Not enough. I can't open your second reference. Your third reference only has NGC 1016 as an entry in a table. Not enough. Your fourth reference only has it as entries in tables, and a trivial mention in the text. Not enough. The mention in the book is also completely trivial. The bottom line is, people don't care about this galaxy specifically, and there just isn't anything to write about other than its basic properties. Tercer (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect NGC objects are not automatically notable and need more coverage than passing listings. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 5 February 2021 (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.