Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UGCA 1

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. Enigma^msg 21:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UGCA 1

[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)

Fails WP:NASTRO. No published research specific to this object, only a listing in an obscure (to the average reader) catalogue. No popular coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Satisfies GNG. I see four catalogues, not one; plus other sources. One of those catalogues is the Principal Galaxies Catalogue. If the experts who compiled that catalogue think this galaxy is one of the principal ones, I have no choice but to accept their judgement that this galaxy is notable. This article is in the process of expansion: see WP:DEMOLISH and WP:HEYMANN. James500 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC) The Principal Galaxies Catalogue has 73,197 entries. It is not particularly large by our standards. 70000+ galaxy articles will not cause our 5.6 million article encyclopedia to explode. Particularly as we don't have the manpower to create them all in the near future anyway. In fact by our normal standards (eg ATHLETE) it is incredibly selective. James500 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having an entry in a catalog with 131000 entries is not notable. Is there anything published about this beyond catalog entries? Tarl N. (discuss) 23:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little coverage found; it does not appear to be a notable object in the Wikipedia sense. Praemonitus (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NASTRO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the only sources appear to be catalogue listings. Without references that talk about this object specifically and in depth, it fails WP:N. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 27 June 2018 (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.