- 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. Against astronomical odds, we're going to keep this stellar example of an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
NGC 3545B
- NGC 3545B ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian ( talk) 18:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Meets criteria 2 on WP:NASTRO. -- » Shadowowl | talk 18:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep...ish. This actually isn't quite as straightforward as it looks. I support the retention of articles about the astronomical objects listed in the New General Catalog. In this case, things are a little funny. NGC 3545, it turns out, isn't a single object at all, but rather a pair of galaxies. The equipment of Dreyer's day did not permit the two galaxies to be separately resolved, and so the "object" received only a single number in the catalog. Furthermore, more modern catalogs have not always been precisely consistent about how to refer to the two component galaxies, sometimes numbering them NGC 3454/NGC 3454B, and sometimes NGC 3545A/NGC 3454B (and the A/B assignment not always in the same order!). IF the NASTRO criterion is meant to apply to the elements of Dreyer's catalog due to historical value, the proper approach would almost certainly be to discuss the entire situation, and both component galaxies, at NGC 3545 (which is a redlink at the time of this writing, as is NGC 3545A); a single article for the entire topic space would be my personal preference. If the once-removed nature of this object from the original catalog suffices, well, then that would also be that. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Whether we now know this as one or two objects seems irrelevant; if it's in the NGC catalogue it surely meets WP:NASTRO, though I'd be OK for a redirect to NGC 3545 were that to be created. 22:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as per NASTRO DocumentError ( talk) 06:37, 20 April 2018 (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.