Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy

WP:DSASTRO

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to astronomy. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Astronomy|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to astronomy. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Astronomy

IC 167

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

Could not find any individual coverage on this object. Should redirect to List of IC objects.

Added after Praemonitus's vote: While there is coverage of the group it is a part of, I couldn't find any coverage of the object specifically. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's borderline. I find brief discussions of IC 167 in a few studies, particularly of the NGC 697 group. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3622

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

Fails WP:NASTRO as a galaxy in the IC (historically non-notable in deletion discussions), and discovered post-1850. Could not find any significant coverage that would make the galaxy pass WP:GNG. Sir MemeGod  15:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to list of IC objects ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of IC objects; no significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willman 1

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, no individual coverage found for this cluster. Sir MemeGod  17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sir MemeGod  17:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a lot of academic papers on this object including experiments looking into dark matter. I've updated and added the sources on the page including academic papers and a couple books. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep: Multiple sources of significant coverage are available, including those in the article references. Praemonitus (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I had looked it up I found nothing, then Dr. Vulpes added the references proving its' notability. With this, I will withdraw. Sir MemeGod  20:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to become familiar with Google scholar. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PG 1543+489

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

Quasar that fails WP:NASTRO as an object with no independent coverage discovered after 1850. Article is also impossible to read, this equation being in the first paragraph; " <Γ2-12 keV > = 1.89±0.1". These equations are all over the article. Sir MemeGod  16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's discussed in a number of papers, including Vignali et al (2008) and Aoki et al (2005). Praemonitus (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I just stripped out all the text that was purely references to catalog papers, but there's still quite a lot of nonsensical text there. If you're going to advocate to keep it, please go and clean up the remaining text. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4516

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

No notability, failure of WP:NASTRO, discovered after 1850, and no individual coverage. Sir MemeGod  15:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of IC objects; although it's a cD galaxy, there was little significant coverage found for IC 4516 or 3C 306. Praemonitus (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 2955

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, no individual coverage. Object also first observed after 1850. Sir MemeGod  15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect the article text to NGC 3862 where IC 2955 is mentioned as a companion. Praemonitus (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 142

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO as a galaxy with little to no independent coverage. Sir MemeGod  15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000). Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. There's just not enough scholarly content to make a decent article. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 135

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

Even though this is one of the 7,000 NGC objects, it was discovered after 1850 and does not seem to have any coverage (failure of WP:NASTRO). Sir MemeGod  15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000). Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. Only a brief mention found.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4026

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

The main reasoning is a failure of WP:NASTRO, but I could also find no significant of individual coverage of this object. Also discovered after 1850. Sir MemeGod  15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of IC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of IC objects. There is some discussion in a paper by Trentham and Mobasher (1998), but that doesn't seem enough to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3078

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

No notability, all searches led me to a vast list of astronomical objects. Fails WP:NASTRO for this reason. Sir MemeGod  15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to list of IC objects ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects. Non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4651

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

No individual coverage, ails WP:NASTRO. Sir MemeGod  15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  15:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in many sources, some of which can be seen in the reflist. SevenSpheres (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur, it's a well studied cluster. Praemonitus (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 02:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?[2] Praemonitus (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSS J0248+1802

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, too scientific for the average reader. Sir MemeGod  13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence of real notability here, and much of the text of the article consists of irrelevant details about measurements that aren't needed or useful in a WP article. Aldebarium (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No significant study was found of this individual object. Praemonitus (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4141

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

No individual coverage in scientific journals were found after a Google search. Most of the references to this galaxy seem to be large-scale catalogs, such as TheSkyLive or Seligman. Sir MemeGod  14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  14:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 17:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of IC objects. It doesn't appear notable. Praemonitus (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKS 0805-07

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, no independent coverage. Sir MemeGod  13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sir MemeGod  13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's borderline: it gets mentioned in several papers, including an Astronomers' Telegram briefing which says it, "exhibits one of the fastest superluminal motions known to date".[3] Praemonitus (talk) 14:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayleigh (unit)

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

Doing a Google search I cannot find more than a couple of papers where this unit is mentioned, and it is not part of any of the unit standards I can find. Rather than a PROD I am doing an AfD just in case it is used somewhere. If it is, then please add sources and description to that context to demonstrate why it should be retained. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One straightforward way to check for usage is to look at papers that cite a paper establishing a term, in this case "The rayleigh: interpretation of the unit in terms of column emission rate or apparent radiance expressed in SI units" [4]. Checking citing papers [5] gives a good long list, of which I checked the first 10. Of these, 8 make explicit use of the unit, and devote at least a short passage to defining it, so I think we are good. Of particular note is p. 22 of this thesis [6] which gives an in-depth definition that we should adapt for the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear evidence of significant coverage in sources linked above. In addition, editor discussions within the talk pages of the MOS lend validity to the notability of the subject, even if it is rather obscure and not an official SI unit. Jtwhetten (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we have to be very careful not to conflated how we consider SIGCOV for citations of academic articles compared to in news or similar. A good comparison should be how BLP are judged. The most definitive notability is when something becomes a generic, so is quoted without citation e.g. general relativity. Dropping down a level in physics (excluding HEP) I dont think anyone would question the notability of a paper with > 1000 citations, or > 100 in the first year or two.
- A Google search would show if Rayleigh has become a generic -- it has not.
- The original paper has 176 cites on Google Scholar since 1956. While relevant, that is not strong SIGCOV. It has 3 cites in 2023-2024. Note that not every paper that cites it will discuss the units.
- The second has 44 cites since 1974, certainly not particularly significant.
- The third has 58 since 1976, better but it also discusses an alternative definition so IMO is weaker.

My interpretation remains that this is not really a notable topic, and the wider community has not voted major support of the idea. If they had it would be a widely used generic unit. Just my opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N.B., I do not see the MOS discussion as supporting the notability, in fact the opposite. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...what. It's a scientific unit that is used in at least 50 peer-reviewed studies. That makes it easily notable enough for an article. You are operating on some very strange metrics here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am being a rigorous physicist. A paper cited in 50 peer reviewed studies is not particularly notable, for instance in physics it would be counted but far more would be needed for tenure. For a BLP in physics (not HEP) a rough estimate is that their should be 50 papers all cited more than 50 times, i.e. an h-factor of 50. Perhaps compare to unconditionally notable terms such as the 1968 Ernst equation which is cited 1159 times, 1968 Broyden's method cited 3816 etc; there are many, many more. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument as to whether the Rayleigh is generic is curious. A review of linked pages provides multiple references using the unit in the generic sense (i.e. without citation/explanation). Refer to [7], [8], and [9]. The pages using these sources do require editing to comply with MOS but that is another issue. Moreover, I think we would all agree this is a very niche topic, and so it is appropriate to expect a certain amount of difficulty in finding numerous RS to satisfy SIGCOV. Jtwhetten (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CGCG 396-2

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should be kept. It was notable enough for HST to observe it, being voted by Galaxy Zoo users. "Following a public vote, a selection of the most astronomically intriguing objects from the Galaxy Zoo were selected for follow-up observations with Hubble. CGCG 396-2 is one such object, and was captured in this image by Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys." ^[1] Phantomdj (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ HST page for this object

Keep per Phantomdj ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid the Hubble site is the only source that has some non trivial commentary on the object. Don't think it is enough. --C messier (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gems of the Galaxy Zoos, where it has a sentence. There is a very brief mention in the Gems of the Galaxy Zoos paper,[10] and articles associated with a news release about the photo. But I think there's not enough to establish notability by itself. Awesome image though. Praemonitus (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even less of a consensus. I'll try one more relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gems of the Galaxy Zoos: per WP:NASTRO. Sir MemeGod  15:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J082535.19+512706.3

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

No significant or non-trivial coverage in media or studies, not in a catalogue of note, not visible to the naked eye, and not discovered before 1850. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. SkyFlubbler (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a quasar of no particular note. I could find no significant commentary. Non-notable. Praemonitus (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NASTRO. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of most massive black holes. The mass of the black hole on the quasar is known, but I am unable to find any significant coverage on the object itself. Galaxybeing (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, a failure of WP:NASTRO. Sir MemeGod  15:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy proposed deletions

Proposed deletion of NGC 396

The article NGC 396 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This galaxy is not notable, the two references are just catalog entries.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Parejkoj (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De-proded the same day. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of IC 64

The article IC 64 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This galaxy is not notable, all of the references are to catalog entries.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Parejkoj (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De-proded on August 17th. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SLIM (software) (via WP:PROD on 3 February 2024)

[1] HST page for this object

[1]