Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Zwicky 18 C

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 merge to I Zwicky 18. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Zwicky 18 C

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. This is a faint companion or component of I Zwicky 18. It has no individual coverage that I could find and there is nothing particularly interesting about it in the coverage of the parent galaxy. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, the category Category:USNOA2 objects and Category:MU2012 objects should be deleted as well. Loooke (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no object with the names given in NED. There is an object, I Zw 018C, and is mentioned in three papers [1] (just its name), [2], [3], and [4] (mentioned as secondary body) with the last three offering quite a lot of coverage for this stellar component. These three sources make it borderline notable. Lithopsian and Loooke, what do you think? Merge it with the article of the galaxy? --C messier (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this can't be deleted, I'd maybe merge it with I Zwicky 18. Loooke (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to discussing it in I Zwicky 18 and turning this article into a redirect there, essentially a merge.. Lithopsian (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to I Zwicky 18 as above - it verifiably exists and can be written about but I don't think notable enough for its own article. ansh 666 08:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to I Zwicky 18 as above. There is basic verifiable information, but I have not been able to find enough in depth discussion of this object to support an independent article. For verifiable info, merge is a reasonable outcome per WP:ATD and I Zwicky 18 looks like the best merge candidate. --Mark viking (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to I Zwicky 18 as above. For now. Maybe at some point it would be more important to have it. --Axiomus (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2017 (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.