Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 5582


 * 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. BD2412 T 02:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

NGC 5582

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previous deleted as a draft at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:NGC 5582 for lacking notability. Not sure if this should be deleted again as db-repost or kept. (Also I would suggest XCON protecting this as needbe if deleted as it is being recreated and reedited despite being non-notable.) Aasim (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like no sources were cited in the deleted draft, and when created again (and accepted) it still had no sources and could have been deleted as db-repost, but it has been improved since then. Not sure if it is notable, but it could be added to the list and redirected. There are others that appear to be no more notable than this, such as NGC 5579, but that is not a reason to keep this as an article. Peter James (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: needs expansion and research, clearly, but plainly meets WP:NASTCRIT#4 for being discovered in 1788. I have no experience in this area, so I can't say whether that counts for much or what the prevailing feeling on this guideline is, but it suggests that this is likely notable? At worst, it should be merged into List of NGC objects (5001–6000). The MfD is partially concerned with the creator's many frustrating attempts to get this past different reviewers by removing the AfC decline template without doing any work on the article; now that this exists in the mainspace and has sources, that doesn't really apply. —&#8239; The Earwig (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: It's borderline notable based on mentions in a couple of papers, but it's probably never going to be more than a brief article. Praemonitus (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I could find no publications that dealt with this galaxy in a non-trivial manner. It's notable only if all NGC objects are notable.PopePompus (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * should we consider nominating for deletion other NGC articles? Aasim (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well in my rather worthless opinion, either it should be decided that all objects in the NGC catalog are notable by virtue of their presence in that old and historically important catalog, or all of the NGC objects that don't satisfy general notability should be deleted. I would prefer the latter option, because I don't think Wikipedia should become a manually updated third-rate imitation of SIMBAD or NED.PopePompus (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes there are a number of NGC objects that are completely non-notable, at least by WP standards. Praemonitus (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, still cited in some noteworthy papers. Also was discovered by Herschel in 1788, so it's not like this is a recently discovered galaxy being promoted by little known authors of a recent paper. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, mentioned in a couple of papers and it was discovered in the 18th-century, it's very borderline, but I reckon it should be kept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep; in agreement with 's logic. -Hatchens (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As it is the article does not demonstrate notability and should be deleted. However, a quick search revealed two papers that talk specifically about NGC 5582, so it is actually notable. If anybody is interested in writing a decent article they should include such sources, as it is the article is worthless. Tercer (talk) 14:06, 29 March 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.