Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UGC 10


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

UGC 10

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability is established, and apparently none exists. There are no published papers specifically about this galaxy, only catalogue entries and lists. Lithopsian (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Searching GScholar for "UGC 10" finds about 150 hits. Many of those are false positives, but there are two papers, that have some info about UGC 10. There is also the simbad entry UGC 10 A, which seems to be a synonym for UCG 10. These together aren't enough for notability, but that the galaxy exists, along with basic properties, is verifiable. --Mark viking (talk)
 * Delete, while it certainly exists, there's no evidence of notability. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The best I can make of the available sources is one or two primary sources which are a short report of the discovery with little or no follow-up. No notability for it's own article. DeVerm (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep if the two peer reviewed journal sources mentioned above cover this galaxy then it is notable. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also listed here . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No ADSABS results for UGC 10, UCG 10, nor any of its Simbad aliases, nor its NED aliases (Abell 2694 & PGC 226 being the most hopeful).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above reasons. With respect to 's comments, the journal articles in question are not specifically about UGC10, but include it as a comparison or find it in large-scale surveys, respectively. Primefac (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2016 (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.