Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peekaboo 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 keep‎. The consensus is to Keep this article. Any move to rename or merge this article should start with a talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peekaboo Galaxy

[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)

Looks OK at a first glance, but fails the notability criteria for astronomical objects on closer inspection. The available sourcing is one paper that has been cited a grand total of 5 times, 3 of those by the original authors and the other 2 being passing mentions. The original announcement was greeted by a typical flash-in-the-pan of pop-science website coverage, all based on press releases. (It's easy to get splashy churned hype about astronomy stories, but much harder to get reporting that passes the "quote a person not involved in the original study" sniff test.) Trim the fluff, and nothing remains. If PGC 5060432 does need to be covered, anything worth saying about it can be covered in a couple sentences in an article about a broader astronomical topic to which it is relevant. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep: I'm inclined to lean toward a keep since the object has only just become readily observable, and the paper did receive secondary coverage in a number of reliable sources. The paper itself discusses studies of the object from different observatories (HIPASS, ATCA, GALEX, then Hubble and SALT). Also, the object was supposedly identified as a dwarf galaxy using GALAX, not by the paper authors. Praemonitus (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable for being "one of the most metal-poor, least chemically enriched" galaxies. If future HST/JWST results find it to be 'average', 'meh', 'boring', etc., then I'd lean merge & delete. Keep until such time, since astronomy takes time. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that's a reason to cover it at Metallicity#Galaxies, where it is already mentioned? XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. This is kind of a marginal case. The recent work on this galaxy does give some pretty interesting results, but one could argue that it's also WP:TOOSOON since the paper in question was just published in 2023 and only has a few citations to date. The one thing that I do feel strongly about is that if the article is kept, the title should be changed to an actual catalog name of the galaxy, because the name "Peekaboo galaxy" just sounds awfully dumb, and I really hope that name won't continue to be used in future scientific papers on this object. Aldebarium (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we go ahead and move the article to a catalog name now? I really dislike "peekaboo galaxy". Makes my skin crawl. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now at least, "Peekaboo Galaxy" better satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. Yes it's dumb, but so is "Milky Way" and "Tadpole Galaxy". Praemonitus (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This galaxy has been discussed so little that saying that it has a "common name" seems a stretch. XOR'easter (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME is about the most commonly used name, not whether the name is common. Praemonitus (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's about which name is more common, relatively speaking, but in this case the comparison is, like, 3 instances to 2. Maybe there's a relative difference, but the absolute numbers are awfully small. It just seems an odd guideline to invoke here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name might appear silly but at least is better than a lot of random numbers. 21 Andromedae (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and satisfies WP:GNG given the large number of references solely about this galaxy. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would keep until it is no longer considered notable. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 21 Andromedae. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 12:11, 3 July 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.