Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 7454

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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7454

[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)

Does not meet WP:NASTRO. All coverage appears to be in comprehensive sources, databases, or passing mentions in the literature, with nothing dedicated specifically to this galaxy. ^Complex/_Rational 17:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ^Complex/_Rational 17:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This galaxy was discovered in 1784 so it seems it does meet WP:NASTRO #4.[1] Thincat (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch; I missed that part. I still have concerns about the apparent dearth of sources, though I could see this being redirected or left as a WP:PERMASTUB if a pre-1850 discovery is sufficient by itself. ^Complex/_Rational 19:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: While I didn't find any dedicated studies, it has been the target of a number of amateur observations and has entries in a pair of observer catalogues. I added some data with references and links to the other language wikipedias. Praemonitus (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I agree with some of the nominator's concerns, though as WP:NASTRO criteria 4 states that The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology I am at weak keep. There appears to be a few Google Scholar articles based on a preview version, 1, 2, 3, though I'm unsure whether these are trivial mentions or sources that could be useful towards expanding this stub. VickKiang (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Praemonitus and VickKiang. Double sharp (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NASTRO#4, articles who subjects are astronomical objects discovered before 1850 are presumed notable. Per WP:N, an article subject is presumed notable if it meets either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (emphasis mine), provided that the subject is not excluded by WP:NOT. I see no WP:NOT-based reason to delete the article, and the article subject clearly passes WP:NASTRO, so it should be kept. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:57, 8 January 2023 (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.