Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 6666


 * 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 and redirect to List of NGC objects (6001–7000).  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

NGC 6666

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The object doesn't exist, in a constellation that doesn't exist, and there isn't any mention of the object having been thought to exist (the reference is a dynamic link). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, fwiw I saw this new creation and was about to start a thread at WT:ASTRO to see if they thought it was necessary to have pages for these non-existent objects (there are a bunch of pages it seems, 111, 122, 123, 7028, etc). Depending on the outcome of this AfD, we could still do that and PROD the lot.  " Pepper "  @ 03:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Same reasons as everyone else. Honestly, I'd agree with that we should also delete all articles about non-existent NGC objects. Loooke (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as there is no specific notability guideline for non-existent objects – they are not notable unless they pass WP:GNG. Despite being listed in the NGC, WP:NASTRO is not applicable because NGC 6666 does not physically exist, and therefore cannot be described within the meaning of "significant physical entities, associations or structures that current science has confirmed to exist in outer space." Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete something that doesn't exist and has no references that suggest notability. Unfortunately I can't find a case for speedy deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I can: db-g1 or db-nonsense, but the creator of the article would dispute. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-existence is different from nonsense. It's not a hoax either since it makes no claims to existence. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am saying the article is nonsense, not that NGC 6666 is nonsense. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The page definitely does not qualify for a nonsense delete. If you think it is nonsense, it may not be as clear as it should be. I.E. the thing was discovered and listed. But then later found that it did not exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  05:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - The   Magnificentist  11:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The topic probably is notable as there are publications about its non-existance. But unless a writer here can do more than write a substub, we can do without this page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: The object does not exist, it is in a constellation that does not exist, and evidence of notability does not exist, so it is only fitting that the Wikipedaia article not exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of NGC objects (6001–7000). That's the sensible place to note that this NGC number is assigned to a false sighting.  --Lockley (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this was a false sighting, in which case it was thought to exist, then, first, should the list note that it was a false sighting, and, second, was it thought to be in Lyra (an actual constellation), and is there a typo in the name of the constellation? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well let me correct myself. In regard to the New General Catalog, "non-existent" does not mean "does not exist."  A research paper written in 1993, which is abstracted here and discussed here, counts 229 entries classified as "non-existent".  That's roughly 3% of the total 7840 NGC entries.  The paper found that five were duplicates, 99 existed "in some form", 124 needed further research, and only one -- NGC 1498 -- for sure did not exist.  So "non-existent" here is a historical categorization which doesn't correspond AT ALL with actual discoveries.  As to how to reflect all this, I'd stand by a Merge and Redirect on the grounds that NGC 6666 is not individually notable, and in any case it would be useful to have an explanation of "NGC non-existence" on the NGC article.  I'll do that part.  --Lockley (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see that the constellation has been corrected. So the object is questionable in a real constellation.  Okay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are now two more of these kinds of articles by the same writer: NGC 421 and NGC 412 but with slightly more referencing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 3 June 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.