Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy

WP:DSASTROWP: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

Sudhaker Upadhyay

AfDs for this article:

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

Early stage academic whose page was deleted in 2017. Page was recently recreated, failed at AfC so editor moved it to main claiming that he passes WP:NPROF. While his citations have improved, at most he is an asst_prof (perhaps an independent researcher) in a fairly high citation area. No awards, no coverage, still some years away from a pass of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a high-enough citation area that I don't think two barely-triple-digit citation counts are enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't see anything here that would clearly meet NACADEMIC, and the sources are obviously nowhere near enough satisfying GNG. (If someone does come up with evidence to support either, pls ping me and I'll take another look.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citation count is nowhere near high enough to justify inclusion for someone who is still a junior academic and without a significant award. I also don't think his research activity so far is particularly impressive even among early career researchers in his field e.g. compare to the profile of this academic, who got her PhD around the same time as the article subject, but has over four times as many total citations and a h-index of 66. Leonstojka (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it makes much sense to compare citations and h-index between researchers in quantum gravity and in galaxy formation. The authorship and citation patterns are too different. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reason I declined the draft, fails WP:NACADEMIC. RangersRus (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of the moon on wildlife

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

Unfortunately, I recommended the editor add their material to the corresponding existing pages about phenomena instead of at Moon, but it seems they've made an article about multiple subjects instead. There's nothing this article would help readers with that the individual contributions where they belong wouldn't. Tide seems redundant but Nocturnality or Moonlight do not! Remsense 🌈 论 22:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Remsense 🌈 论 22:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Astronomy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I intended this to be a short section on the Moon page, referencing these pages that you mentioned, but you personally deemed it "irrelevant" to the page. I don't agree at all, the page also contains a large section on the Lunar effect, which is not even a real phenomenon but a speculated one. The impact of the moon on wildlife is clearly an interesting and relevant topic (in my personal opinion at least as interesting as the cultural references to the moon, which are discussed at length!), and should be mentioned somewhere. If not on the moon page, and not on a separate page, please suggest a better space for this. Apoptheosis (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single organism in the tidal zones - uncounted thousands of species - is affected by tides, and it is the relevant existing articles (intertidal zone and intertidal ecology) that cover this aspect. Similar, animal navigation is where moon navigation should go - either under Animal_navigation#Orientation by the night sky or under a new subheading, although I suggest the former unless there is a large amount of material waiting to be added. So I guess this equates to a partial merge for the moonlight navigation only, and drop the tidal material because it's covered. We don't need a new article for this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see how this is redundant with the mentioned articles. I still think there should be a space to clearly state and collect the impact the Moon has on biological systems on earth by referencing theses pages, which is significant. In my opinion the Moon page would be the right place, as it already includes the Lunar effect. Currently this is under Moon#In culture and life. This could be seperated out into 'In culture' and 'In life/biology". Apoptheosis (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would seem sensible to me would be separating Lunar effect into effects on humans vs other biota, and then add a summary and pointers to the pages mentioned above to the latter section. Linking between articles is always good, we are just trying to avoid creating unnecessary real estate (i.e. new pages) in the process. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this approach is that 1) the Lunar effect seems to be primarily about the effect on humans, and the article starts with the claim that it is 'unfounded'. To be fair, I think this article should be rewritten/rephrased as well, since it mentions also proven effects on animals, but the way it's written this is hard to disentangle. 2) Lunar effect is about the effect of lunar (month) cycles, while the effect of the moon goes beyond that (e.g., via tides). Apoptheosis (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a required focus on humans in this concept or article; the non-human sections have quite a lot of material. You are right that this is about lunar phases rather than tides, but then we do cover general tidal influences already in several articles (see above) and these could be linked with a simple "For general impacts of lumar tides on biota, SEE ALSO". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elmidae. There's no need for a new article for this content. While both tides and nighttime light are from the moon, they are not otherwise related in a way that would warrant this page. Reywas92^Talk 22:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have a whole lesson for my 8th grade science and 9th grade biology classes about how tides affect crabs. I'm not sure that's enough for an entire encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Lunar effect article, which does cover animals and plants to a greater extent than this article. Praemonitus (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While no consensus for delete at this point the discussion has elaborated conflicting options - there's a fairly clearly defined merge proposal and some contested targets for redirect. Further discussion on those proposals would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lunar effect. per above OPHYRIUS ^⚔ 04:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lunar effect – Sounds a great WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C/2024 X1 (Fazekas)

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

A comet too dim to be observed by anything other than the biggest telescopes in the world. Just the trivial coverage for every comet, i.e. the discovery announcement and the orbital data, along with some databases. Fails WP:NASTRO. C messier (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Redirect to List of Halley-type comets.--C messier (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of periodic comets where it is already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per above. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 XX61

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

Non-notable asteroid with zero news and scientific coverage (see Google search). Fails astronomical object notability guidelines WP:NASTRO. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 00:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. It doesn't qualify for List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2017. Praemonitus (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy proposed deletions

None