Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pisces A


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Pisces A

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 11:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is one of at least five similar nominations that should probably have been combined into a single nomination. The others are:
 * Articles for deletion/Pisces B
 * Articles for deletion/NGC 7077
 * Articles for deletion/NGC 6503
 * Articles for deletion/NGC 6789
 * The nominator seems to be proposing to merge each of these into the Local Void article. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, I see this merge was previously proposed and closed with a consensus to not merge. Sources are cited there to show that these galaxies are notable. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The merger of these articles with Local Void been already discussed and rejected (Talk:Local Void) because the individual galaxies where shown to be notable. --C messier (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete : Saying that they're notable is just an excuse to keep an article that is a stub but not looking for an accurate information to expand an article. So, in my opinion this article is not notable. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. hamster717 (discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌) 11:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete : Some users kept saying "keep" but none of them want to expand the page. So, why not just have it deleted, since it's pointless to keep an article that's a stub but not find any sources to expand it. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2024 (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.