User:Sam-2727/Analysis of NGC Notability

I compiled a sample of 25 random NGC objects. Here I assess the notability of them. I do a search in quotes on google and in google scholar. I'll post any sources that might indicate notability as well.

Summary Statistics

15 were found to be "not notable," four are "likely not notable," one is "likely notable," five are "notable."

Pessimistically, this is a 95% confidence interval of (0.0432, 0.3568) for the proportion that are notable, and optimistically, a 95% confidence interval of (0.21, 0.59).

Listing

1. NGC 3168. [1] seems to be an indiscriminate collection of objects, likely not reliable anyway. [2] is a footnote. All others are mere lists/common autogenerated information sources. Not notable

2. NGC 6289. [3] is an indiscriminate collection. The one academic source, [4], is just an entry in a table. Not notable

3. NGC 2713. [5] certainly supports notability. [6] about a supernova in it solidifies notability of this object Notable

4. NGC 3770.[7] indiscriminate listing. [8] is also an indiscriminate listing. In [9], the object is just used as a footnote. Not notable

5. NGC 4582. [10] another autogenerated source. Another footnote like reference in [11]. Not notable

6. NGC 5410. [12] is an amateur website discussing this in detail. Doesn't really ring "reliable" but does express some Interest. [13] is an article about a supernova. Together with [14], this object is notable.

7. NGC 1896. [15] is autogenerated. [16] shows amateur interest, albeit not a reliable source. Mere reference in [17]. [18] is a table of metallicity, although this is part of a very long collection of many tables. Likely not notable

8. NGC 7393. [19] shows amateur interest, but not a reliable source. [20] is a Wikipedia mirror. [21] mentions this trivially in one table. Not notable

9. NGC 5159. [22] is more "fan art" as I call it. [23] suggests that this object might be notable, but it would be best to have it in the article on the whirlpool galaxy. [24] is a mere reference. Likely not notable

10. NGC 6556. [25] is a typo. [26] is another typo. Not notable

11. NGC 5660. [27] is an amateur picture. [28] is a trivial reference. [29] is another amateur photo. [30] is a trivial reference. [31] mentioned as a possible connection to another object. [32] is a trivial reference. [33] is a trivial reference. [34] mentioned again in a relation to a four galaxy system. [35] another reference to this system. Likely notable, but should be in an article of that four galaxy system.

12. NGC 7496. [36] is a definite notable reference, [37] as well. Notable

13. NGC 6495. [38] supports notability, so does [39]. In [40], the galaxy is only mentioned more because more data was collected on it, mainly due to coincidence. Thus, Notable, but the article should be about the supernova, not the galaxy itself.

14. Mostly listed in relation to Equuleus, likely because someone put it in the Wikipedia article (for example [41]). Not notable

15. NGC 5803. Not mentioned in a single result on google scholar. Other sources autogenerated. Not notable

16. NGC 5918. [42] is yet another user generated source. Trivial reference in [43]. Not notable

17. NGC 7722. Mention in [44] as an example of isntrument performance. Part of larger list in [45]. [46] mentions the object as an exception to some rules. [47] is a trivial reference. [48] mentions it only once in the actual text of the article. Not notable.

18. NGC 3472. Really only Wikipedia mirrors. Not notable

19. NGC 7014. Has a Wikipedia article, but no notable sources in that article. [49] is a trivial reference. [50] mentions it as having a well-known angle and discusses this in more depth. Therefore likely not notable.

20. NGC 1726. [51] is a trivial reference. All other references are in tables. Not notable.

21. NGC 5689. [52] hubble image for public consumption. Amateur site: [53]. Trivial references in [54] and [55]. Therefore likely not notable.

22. NGC 3709. Only the typical data collection sites. No scholarly articles whatsoever. Not notable

23. NGC 6750. [56] mentions it but only as to why it was included in a table. [57] is a transcription error which should be NGC 6751.Not notable

24. NGC 1653. [58] listed but only as an error. Trivial mention in [59]. Trivial mention in [60] as having a "discrepancy" in the spectrum listed in the table. Not notable.

25. NGC 3690. Correctly listed on the page for Arp 299 on Wikipedia. All references are with respect to their collision or them together, for instance [61] and [62]. Therefore notable, but shouldn't have stand-alone article.