Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 88


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

NGC 88

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article in it's current form has no written text whatsoever. I was thinking about readding the speedy deletion tag (this time CSD A3), but I rather choose this way since I don't want to harass the article with speedy deletion tags.  User  Doe ☻T☼C 22:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Created earlier today (November 29 at 20:34), nominated 22:20, what time is it now?  Since it's usually five days before a delete, and since the author may be planning to write more, drawing from the link, I don't think this is a speedy or a snowball.  Mandsford (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just added a 2 sentence intro to the stub. I'll try to expand from available sources later tonight. NGC 88 is a verifiable galaxy. Unless the article is a duplicate, I suggest keeping it. (No vote yet). • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We've got List of NGC objects, if there's really and truly insufficient content for an article it can just be redirected there (or rather to one of its sub-lists). But that's clearly not the case here. Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Now it has some written text and would probably qualify as a galaxy-stub. My reasoning does not apply any longer. I hereby take the nomination back and I hope this will become a great article :-) Regards  User  Doe ☻T☼C 00:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, as nominator has withdrawn, no-one else has voted to delete, and there is no reason to delete this stub article on a well-known galaxy. Spacepotato (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2007 (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.