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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronet

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability/importance still seems low. No useful references to support most content on this page. Redirecting wouldn't be a bad idea. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Astronomy, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a cursory check for references turned up a number of papers on the subject. It appears sufficiently notable, and I'm not clear that WP:BEFORE was followed. Praemonitus (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article now cites multiple sources including Science (2007, 2009, 2011) and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (2013), all WP:RS, offering WP:SIGCOV of Astronet and satisfying WP:GNG. A JSTOR search provides good coverage, and as another editor has already noted, it's unclear whether WP:BEFORE was properly followed. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Of course this is a keep please Best Regards (CP) 21:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Over the past few days, I’ve added 8–9 WP:RS sources from Science, Nature, the Royal Astronomical Society, Springer, and others. Promotional and unsourced content has been removed. The article is no longer a stub supported by only 1 or 2 sources and it now clearly passes WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the recently made improvements and a good state of sources. Such initiatives may have usually sources not easily searchable online. - Norlk (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for those who contributed, nice work on building it up. It's encouraging to see. Thanks! Praemonitus (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2025 (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.

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 delete‎. There's a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, and no support for any of the proposed merge targets. Any editor may recreate the page as a Redirect, if an appropriate target is found. If consensus forms to merge any of the content somewhere, the history can be undeleted underneath a redirect to facilitate this. Please link this AfD if requesting at WP:REFUND. Owen× ☎ 14:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proplyd 133-353

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, has no substantial coverage beside the discovery paper. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on SIMBAD it appears to be catalogued as COUP 540. But yes, there's nothing in the way of additional useful resources. Nowhere in the paper does it say this is a likely sub-brown dwarf; all it says is that "Proplyd 133-353 could be a planetary-mass object". Praemonitus (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see two usable sources. [1] where it is initially catalogued and [2] where it is discussed in depth. The abstract of the latter says "[According to our data,] Proplyd 133-353 is substellar (∼M9.5) and has a mass probably less than 13 Jupiter mass and an age younger than 0.5 Myr." I think that even if one detailed paper is deemed insufficient it should be merged into Theta1 Orionis C or Trapezium Cluster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The topic is too narrow for a standalone article. Proplyd 133-353 is discussed in a meaningful way in only one scholarly source (Fang et al., 2016). A JSTOR search returns 0 results, and a Google Scholar search has only two additional papers with passing mentions. Per WP:NOTABILITY, this does not justify a separate article. Recommend merging into the broader article on Proplyd as an example. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Theta1 Orionis C -- seems like this is only discussed in 1 source, but the content is probably worth adding to the article on the star, or the article on the cluster. I assume Theta1 Orionis C is the article on the star it orbits? It seems better to have it on the more specific star article than the cluster article. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might warrant a mention on proplyd, but probably not much of the content can be merged there, as it's not a very exemplary example. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recomend merging to Rogue planet#List 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, actually Theta1 Orionis C is the central star of the region where Proplyd formed, not the star where it orbits. Note that Proplyd 133-353 is in a young (a few miliion years) region of active star formation. A redirect to Proplyd seems more appropriate. 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have 3 or 4 different target articles suggested for a Merge and we have to get consensus on one primary one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in scientific literature for stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (into Orion Nebula, potentially). As the largest exo-planet found to date, it warrants a mention somewhere. Anyone who'd search for it by name is someone who already knows about it, I don't think they'd learn anything new from a Wikipedia article on it. However, it being the largest exo-planet, it is an interesting subject for the average (or layman) reader interested in astronomy. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a rough consensus above to not keep as a separate article, in which case Delete may be the best option. It's only worth a line or two in Rogue planet and Proplyd and isn't a likely search term for either. There isn't really a good place to merge into Theta1 Orionis C or Trapezium Cluster as neither of those articles has a place to list minor objects. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2025 (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.

Astronomy proposed deletions