2MASX J22550681+0058396 : User_talk:Galaxybeing has created a whole bunch of such stubs, and I'm going to request deletion of all the ones that I see without a specific secondary source that makes them even barely notable (e.g. IRAS_14348-1447 which at least has a couple of references that specifically mention it in the title).  I am also nominating the following related pages because they are not notable, for the same reasons as above.  I'll also note that just having one or more supernovae in them does not make a galaxy notable either: we're currently finding tens of thousands of supernovae per year, and when LSST comes online next year, that will increase by an order of magnitude.  MCG_-03-04-014 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 3683 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 4588 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) 2MASX J05210136-2521450 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 3222 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 1050 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 3622 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) UGC 9684 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 2816 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 3505 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 2498 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 3275 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) NGC 7222 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) NGC 3978 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Arp 60 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) IC 2759 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) NGC 3509 ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Parejkoj ( talk ) 17:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 17:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : of these objects, UGC 9684 has multiple sources (mainly about supernovae events), and thus may be notable per WP:GNG .  The others were found lacking in substantial references.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 19:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As I noted, just having supernovae in it does not make a galaxy notable.  UGC 9684 has an ESA press release, but I don't see any papers about the galaxy itself.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 19:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: According to ESA press release, it is known UGC 9684 is one of the supernova producing galaxies in which SN 2020pni is quite notable.  Also there is a Universe guide article for that galaxy.  This article can be expended should more sources be found for UGC 9684.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 04:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  2MASX J05210136-2521450 and 2MASX J22550681+0058396 is a luminous infrared and post starburst galaxy respectively, therefore they are notable.  Both have ESA press releases and I also found secondary sources for them.  As for the IC galaxy objects, I know the German wikipedia has all of the articles and therefore should be kept for future studies despite not being notable.  MCG -03-04-014 is classified as a luminous galaxy and should be kept as well.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 05:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are thousands of known LIRGs, they're more numerous even than quasars ref .  Same with post-starburst galaxies.  Those are not inclusion criteria and do not confer notability per WP:NASTRO .  Wikipedia does not and should not have an article about every galaxy in those classes.  Modest Genius talk 12:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Universe Guide is not a reliable source.  See this page .  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 10:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes I saw your comment, but in the case of UGC 9684 I disagreed.  The notability requirements are based on satisfying WP:GNG , rather than prioritization in terms of astronomy research.  Multiple supernovae events hosted by a galaxy may provide sufficient substantial coverage, particularly when combined with being the subject of a Hubble image and article.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 14:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope, the notability is presumed if a topic satisties the general notability guideline or any subject-notability guideline (SNG), such as WP:NASTRO .  If an astronomical object satisfies any criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) it is presumed to be notable, even if it doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria.  As the name suggests, it is a general guideline, not an absolute one.  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 15:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think you may be misinterpreting my remarks.  WP:NASTRO does not override WP:GNG ; it's a supplement, as it says in the lead paragraph.  If an article satisfies WP:GNG, then it satisfies the notability requirements, regardless of priority to the astronomy community.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I possibly misinterpreted your remark.  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apart from the Hubble/ESA publication, there is significant commentary on UGC 9684 in this paper , so keep .  C messier ( talk ) 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete 2MASX J22550681+0058396 .  I could not find any reliable sources that specifically study or describe this galaxy, even under its alternative IDs.  The references in the article are generic surveys or simulations; the only exception is the ESA press image which has only three sentences describing this galaxy.  That's not enough to pass WP:NASTCRIT .  I haven't looked at the other articles.  Modest Genius talk 12:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 2MASX J05210136-252450.  I firmly believe it can be expended more since there are reliable secondary sources that mentioned about the galaxy itself.  Because of this, it can possibly meet notability guidelines for astronomical objects.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll just note here that the protocol is to only post a single keep or delete comment.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 14:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a discussion, not a vote, and that is the third time you have ! voted 'keep'.  You can't vote multiple times, see WP:DISCUSSAFD .  If reliable sources provide extensive commentary on this galaxy, please provide them here - I've tried to find them without success.  Modest Genius talk 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I actually did found some sources for 2MASX J05210136-252450.  The websites are located below: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/520/2/2351/6957264 https://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/bs58mon/SWIFT_J0520.7-2519 https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2010/16/aa15249-10/T2.html https://www.academia.edu/78698887/The_subarcsecond_mid_infrared_view_of_local_active_galactic_nuclei_I_The_N_and_Q_band_imaging_atlas https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d49/meta https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/520/2/2351/6957264 Hopefully, these sources can be useful.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 15:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this is demonstrating your misunderstanding of the astronomy notability guidelines: those papers all talk about catalog sources, but there is nothing granting notability to this specific source.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 17:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these provide any substantive commentary on this particular galaxy.  Including it in a table or database, or as part of a wider sample, do not qualify for notability.  Please read point 3 of WP:NASTCRIT again.  Modest Genius talk 12:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 2MASX J05210136-252450 has been in 499 different scientific papers according to SIMBAD, which is quite high (most of the other objects nominated here for deletion have less than 50).  The galaxy has been the main subject of study of at least 4 papers https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab4ef8 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aa5df4 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/801/2/126 https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2001/10/aa10444/aa10444.html So keep .  C messier ( talk ) 18:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed, that particular object does seem notable, though is better know by its IRAS number so should be renamed.  Modest Genius talk 12:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] agreed User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 01:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 2MASX J22550681+0058396 isn't as straight forward, but it has been included in studies with small samples and add significant commentary on the object (and there is also the ESA/Hubble page) https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/439/3/2837/1104009 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac5d5f (it is mentioned as 379) So keep .  C messier ( talk ) 18:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I could not find any sources on google.  User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 14:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I've added another block of sources to the deletion request.  Assuming User:Praemonitus 's argument about UGC 9684 regarding "a lot of supernovae make it notable", I'd say that at best one in ten of User:Galaxybeing 's new pages (of which there are over a hundred) are notable, probably more like one in twenty.  I'll also note that many of these pages include non-reliable sources as part of their pile of links (e.g. Universe Guide, Go-astronomy, In-the-sky, and cseligman).  I don't know of a process for it, but I would argue that all of the new pages created by User:Galaxybeing should be deleted, and they should have to be proposed for creation based on notability (assuming User:Praemonitus argument above holds, which I still disagree with, but not strongly).  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 17:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Parejkoj : This deletion request is a bit of a mess.  I would nominate objects (if nominate at all) that have been the subject of Hubble/ESA picture of the week separately, and so I would NGC objects.  C messier ( talk ) 18:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 2MASX J05210136-252450, since it has been the subject of many non-trivial published works, hence satisfying the third criterion of the notability guidelines for astronomical objects .  The name should be changed to IRAS 05189–2524 , since it is the commonly-used name in scientific articles.  InTheAstronomy32 ( talk ) 18:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Quite good idea.  I picked up your point and changed the name to what you mentioned.  Also I expended the article with a few more sources.  Thanks for the name change.  Galaxybeing ( talk ) 07:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: MCG -03-04-014 (aka IRAS F01076-1707) is a bit borderline.  There is the Hubble/ESA page and it has been included in low volume galaxy studies.  From what I found this one has the most commentary on the object.  -- C messier ( talk ) 19:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] NGC 3509 has been included in some low volume galaxy studies.  Three offer significant commentary on the object https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/522782/fulltext/ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/379676/fulltext/ https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1983AJ.... .88..583H So keep .  C messier ( talk ) 19:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, so three keep s from you then?  Praemonitus ( talk ) 12:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Four, UGC 9684, NGC 3509, 2MASX J22550681+0058396, and 2MASX J05210136-252450.  Neutral about MCG -03-04-014.  C messier ( talk ) 07:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Non-notable NGC objects can be redirected to their entries in the List of NGC objects instead of being deleted.  SevenSpheres ( talk ) 19:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] sure User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 14:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 18:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion.  I see opinions on two different articles but there are 17 included in this bundled nomination.  I suggest this nomination is withdrawn and individual AFDs are started or, at least smaller bundles of very similar articles.  With only 1 or 2 articles soliciting comments, this is likely to close as No consensus for the entire bundle.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can try to do that, but given the large number of these new articles, it's a pain to sort them into bundles.  I don't know if there's a tool that would make it easier than my manual "copy AFD templates and summaries across pages" process that I used for this one, but doing that for all of the >100 articles would be very slow.  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep them all and let God sort them out.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 00:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And that means...what, exactly?  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 21:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] what do you mean User:Hamterous1 ( discuss anything!🐹✈️ ) 21:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sadustu Tau and Hamterous1 : It's a reference to Caedite eos.  Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.  Randy Kryn is (likely) agreeing with Liz 's suggestion to close this nomination and handle each article individually.  jlwoodwa ( talk ) 18:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : User:Galaxybeing , could you please say something about how you are creating these articles, and how you are choosing objects to make pages for?  It looks like you've made over 20 new articles in the past week, many of which have the same problems I listed above (all of your new IC pages, for example).  Those new IC articles are just stubs that summarize their catalog entries, and I would add all of them to a deletion request like this one.  How are you pulling together that summary information so quickly?  - Parejkoj ( talk ) 17:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TRAINWRECK per L iz and Randy Kryn, since I can clearly see split opinion upon different articles in that list of 17 astronomical articles.  Iggy ( Swan ) ( Contribs ) 17:39, 21 May 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus