Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 428


 * 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.

NGC 428
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, with no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Inks.LWC (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Galaxy. Only thing approaching in depth coverage appears to be the caption on the NASA image of the. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Please define not notable Galaxy? There have been recent discoveries, there is a NASA Picture of the Day feature, this makes it notable. And as pointed out in the edit summary from recent updates, other articles on galaxies are not much longer either. prokaryotes (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes a notable Galaxy is the same as what makes a notable anything else, significant in depth coverage in independent sources. See Other stuff exists for why the second argument doesn't hold water. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep., I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination, since it rather clearly meets two of the criteria set forth in WP:NASTRO. First, it satisfies criterion two, since it is listed as an NGC object, which in itself is enough to satisfy the guideline. Furthermore, it also meets criterion four, since it was discovered by Herschel in 1786, and the guideline states that any astronomical object discovered before 1850 is notable. -- Biblioworm  (talk)  00:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misread WP:NASTRO, it says that both of these classes are probably notable, it doesn't have a definite ruling. I will, however, be more than happy to withdraw my nom in the face of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject', per the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline says: "If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, supported through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article." GNG states that an article is notable if "[i]t meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline..." WP:NASTRO is a subject-specific guideline, and the requirement is that the object is likely notable if it meets any of the criteria listed, if this is proven with other sources. The article's satisfaction of the two criteria mentioned can be proven, via this NASA article, and an article from Softpedia News, if you feel that NASA is not independent enough. Both sources are completely dedicated to the subject, so there is significant coverage as defined in WP:GNG (e.g., "directly and in detail"). -- Biblioworm  (talk)  00:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also added journal study from 1996.prokaryotes (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Withdraw as per the peer review articles recently added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2015 (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.