Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 4993


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

NGC 4993

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This galaxy currently cannot satisfy WP:N. Being the source of a GRB does not really make a galaxy notable. The GW detection is currently still a rumour, and even if it pans out I do not see how it makes the host galaxy particularly notable. TR 21:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It does pass WP:NASTRO, specifically requirements 2 (listed in New General Catalogue) and 4 (discovered before 1850). I would suggest merging the content from GRB 170817A here, although the GRB article doesn't appear to have a lot more information than is already on this article. Cthomas3 (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and it also passes the general notability guidelines. GRB's are not excluded by WP:NOT. Thincat (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously meets WP:NASTRO, as you can tell by catalog number alone - but not hard to confirm in the article. The nominator seems to have a problem with recent research in gamma ray bursts and is trying to delete all relevant articles. Who knows why? Concerns should be raised in talk pages not by (possibly) maliciously nominating articles for deletion (which is against Wikipedia rules). Anyway, regardless, clearly meets notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with any of the research. I have a problem with pages being created of rumours before the actual research that would make them notable has become available in the public domain. In this case, I did not realize that being in the NGC was considered enough for a galaxy to be notable. (This seems like a rather weak bar as there are nearly 8000 objects in there. Do we really feel each of those should have a Wikipedia article? But I'll leave that to WP:ASTRO). I take serious offence at my legitimate concerns about these articles being referred to as malicious.TR 12:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * TR has challenged articles related to one particular rumor. He has given some reasons for his viewpoint, others have given reasons for the opposing viewpoint, the discussion has been proceeding with GF all-around.  Colapeninsula's comments, however, are so obviously inaccurate and out-of-line, they are essentially a personal attack.  I am marking them as struck.  See WP:RPA.129.68.81.110 (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep NGC objects are clear passes of WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep based on supportive comments noted by others above - well stated imo atm - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this article, and I know this isn't a voting poll so I'm not "voting" keep. Thanks to those above for investigating the article's notability. In addition, I note that many other language Wikipedias have this galaxy article and many others not found in the English Wikipedia, for better or worse on either side.  Perhaps they have set the bar lower or are in general more interested in such things. Tayste (edits) 22:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since TR, the AfD nominator, agreed that WP:NASTRO clearly covers this article, and no other objection has been made, it seems this is a Speedy Keep. According to WP:NACD, any user who has not commented yet may close this discussion, and so may TR, by following the instructions at the link.  TR may be right that the bar has been set too low, but that would be a concern to discuss on WP:NASTRO's Talk page, not here. 129.68.81.110 (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2017 (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.