Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 6503

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. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6503

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems the most clearly notable of the five nominated articles. SIMBAD lists numerous papers dedicated to this galaxy. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(additional context copied from my comment here) 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) 00:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~: If they're notable, they would've been expanded with the accurate information by now, but they're not. So, I highly doubt they're notable. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely notable. Praemonitus (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~: Same thing I said to SevenSpheres about the reason I doubt about an article being notable. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The merger of these articles with Local Void been already discussed and rejected (Talk:Local Void#Proposed merger of five galaxies) because the individual galaxies where shown to be notable. --C messier (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is notable. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~: I don't think so, because no one has even tried to expand the article. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.