Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDF 7


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

UDF 7

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not significant by WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage, no claims of significance. In fact all I could find were two entries in lists of related objects. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete 1 galaxy out of the 200 billion known galaxies out there. Not notable Grammarphile (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into a relevant parent article. It's millions of stars, I can't imagine that there isn't something notable in there that eventually will be added. South Nashua (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. Regarding the 'keep or merge' vote above, we cannot presume that this object will eventually become notable at some point in the indefinite future. If this were the standard, we would have hundreds of millions of stubs about nearly every known astronomical object, merely duplicating basic information from astronomical catalogues (see WP:NOT). This is exactly why the notability criteria of WP:NASTRO exist, and I concur with the nominator's application of that policy to this object. It (1) is not visible to the unaided eye and has never been so, (2) is not in a catalogue of interest to amateur astronomers or a catalogue of historical interest, (3) has not been the subject of in-depth attention in reliable secondary sources, and (4) was discovered after 1850. Thus, it fails WP:NASTRO. Astro4686 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find a single paper on google scholar that mentions this object. Therefore, not notable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:59, 4 January 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.