Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDF 7
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 ). This is exactly why the notability criteria of  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 
— User:Astro4686, 07:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:NASTRO||WP:NASTRO (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)