Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large pathetic galaxy

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Large pathetic galaxy

Large pathetic galaxy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Informal definition; Practically the only references I can find are mirrors of Wikipedia and a single news story. Rampart 13:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — While it does seem like an informal name, it is verified at a reliable external source (CNN, although the link is now dead), and is also currently mentioned at Underground News. Unfortunately there doesn't yet seem to be a formal name, but once there is this page can be moved and a redirect left in its place. --DeLarge 13:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I consider CNN to be prety reliable, and the articles information was somehwat interesting. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment if it is an unofficial, recently created term, and only used by a few groups, isn't that by definition a violation of WP:NEO? Koweja 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is not about the term, the article is about a large nameless galaxy. WP:NEO doesn't apply. hateless 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I think if the galaxy's name was a string of random characters, it wouldn't be in AFD. I think the existance and verifiability of this galaxy is barely but sufficiently established by sources, however, calling it a "pathetic" in the title is clearly NPOV and not suitable even for a temporary name. hateless 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article referenced only says, Robert Lupton of Princeton University, whose team discovered the big, dim feature, called it a "large pathetic galaxy" with a mass comparable to a cluster of stars, much less than the Milky Way. it is unclear if this name is used by the wider astronomy community. At most the fact that a group of stars are in the process of being incorporated into the Milky Way could be said in the Milky Way article. Also, this article faces the problem that has little potential to ever be more than a stub. WJBscribe 01:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The press release linked to by the article appears to identify the object described in this Astrophysical Journal paper. This may correspond to an object listed in the SIMBAD database as "[BDS2003] 122", although I do not think that can be used as a real scientific name. I suggest that someone reads the Astrophysical Journal paper and update the article accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 12:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per above ––30sman 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WJBScribe. A descriptive phrase isn't an article.DGG 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; the problem seems to be that we've got something notable (as per CNN), but that doesn't actually have a name yet, and the article has to be called something. This doesn't seem to be to be a reason to delete. --ais523 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• The key point of the referenced article is that Lupton called it "a" LPG. There is no implication that he was naming it "the" LPG. Accordingly, I judge this a description of an object, rather than a name, and therefore feel we should Delete. WMMartin 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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.