Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 4


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

NGC 4

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We have only the typical sources one might expect for any galaxy object. A google scholar search only shows appearance in large tables. No independent studies or discussion in reliable sources have been done on this object. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that I would also be open to redirecting the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- All there is about this galaxy is that it exists and is listed in big catalogues. There are billions of galaxies in the Universe. Most are not WP-notable, including this one. Reyk YO! 07:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most NGC galaxies would have sufficient notability under WP:NASTRO, but this one is an exception. NED lists only 3 references with information on NGC 4, one of which is the NGC catalog and the other two are more recent large catalog papers. It's surprising to see such a low level of notability and so few literature references for a galaxy in the NGC catalog. Aldebarium (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would encourage you to take a look at User:Sam-2727/Analysis of NGC Notability. According to my estimates, it would seem that the majority of NGC objects are in fact likely not notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My plan in the future is to go through all NGC objects and redirect the ones that I don't deem notable. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but it might be better to have a broader discussion about NGC notability criteria to build a consensus on this first, since the text in WP:NASTRO does leave some ambiguity about where to draw the line. Looking at your list of NGC objects that you deem non-notable, some of them have dozens of references in NED and might therefore have much better claim to notability than a galaxy like NGC 4 that has only 3 references ever. I would recommend using NED rather than Google Scholar for this, because NED will be much more complete in terms of listing which papers include data or analysis on a given galaxy. Aldebarium (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Another useful resource for finding references is simbad. Reyk YO! 06:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * and, check the talk page for NASTRO. As you can see, there has been an ongoing discussion that doesn't seem to ever reach consensus. Thus, I think this needs to be decided on an object by object basis. I'll take that into consideration (using NED and simbad) in the future. I re-analyzed the sources using NED and simbad, but I still believe my analysis is correct (i.e. in terms of separate articles or not). If merely listed in tables of thousands of galaxies, these are not notable. I think to include the robust information that every NGC object seems to have, it would be useful to expand the list of NGC objects to include information like redshift, etc. for the objects that have that. But if no study directly analyzes that object, I don't think it merits it's own article. But again, this is a case by case thing thus the AfD discussion here. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Gaia stars have just as much information derived on them, and there are many studies that use them, but at the same time, there are greater than 1,000,000,000 of them. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Final comment: some of the references in the databases seem to be false positives. Scrutiny is necessary when analyzing those sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK- I hadn't seen that talk-page discussion on NASTRO before, thanks for pointing that out. Aldebarium (talk) 04:48, 12 June 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.