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:

1. 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.
2. 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

WISEPA J195246.66+724000.8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, SIMBAD show six references which are all catalogues and do not provide significant coverage. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indranil Banik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Orphaned article about a fairly junior academic who does not meet academic notability guidelines: WP:ACADEMIC OSmeone (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. OSmeone (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on his way up, but at the postdoctoral fellow level notability requires articles from major sources about the person not about the person's research. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. His current academic post and citation record do not convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. We cannot use the Hindu coverage of his work in mainstream media because it was written by him, leaving only a couple of paragraphs mentioning him in NewScientist. I don't think that's significant coverage, and even if it were it would only be one source. My delete is weak largely per WP:TOOSOON: he appears to be on the way up and could well meet our standards for notability in a few years. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of near-Earth asteroids by distance from Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly maintained, no notability for this list, and it simply isn't feasible to list all near-Earth asteroids since there are over 37,000 known according to the Minor Planet Center. You can find a list of all NEOs by semi-major axis from the Sun more easily via JPL's SBDB query. Wikipedia isn't a database. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY unless some additional constraints are added. For example, make it a list with a size requirement. The list would be significantly shorter if it only showed asteroids of 1 km or larger.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom and Praemonitus's comment. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository for statistics, so unless some constraints were added to make this list practical to readers, this has to go. ArkHyena (it/its) 22:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. How has this survived for 20 years?! Renerpho (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical timeline of the Big Bang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Deprod rationale claimed that notability was not refuted, but that is not the issue in the article. However, the other issues have not been addressed. They did not explain why we need a graphical version of the timeline in Chronology of the universe and Timeline of the early universe. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Astronomy, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... not actually an article, and not justifiable under any notability criteria or WP:NOT? This could just be an image, in which case it might be helpful to more readers than the 50 or so who stumble across it every day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CFORK. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – same reasoning as with Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. It's not an article, it's cruft written with messy markup. Something akin to Template:Nature timeline could be added to one of the remaining timeline articles. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. We are an encyclopedia, which should be published at an appropriate "Lexile" (or reading level) that a layperson can read and at least gather the gist. It's in a sense discrimination against our core readers - who need context. Our articles are geared towards a certain audience, and if you don't know your audience, get off the stage. If a teacher submitted this as a lesson plan, they would be evaluated as "not effective." There are many other STEM articles that even I don't understand, but they can be fixed with links, examples, and footnotes. This one, using a logarithmic scale as its centerpiece, can't be fixed into an actual encyclopedia article. Sorry to be so harsh, but I just spent hours the past few days fixing articles that were too high or too low a Lexile. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 138573 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This star has gotten some attention for its similarity to the Sun, but is mostly discussed together with other Sun-like stars and not individually (e.g. in 1, 2, 3). In a previous AfD it was redirected to Solar analog#Solar twin, but recreated a few years later; if not kept, that redirect should be restored. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, a basic search show this star has gotten some coverage by some studies, given that it is among the closest solar twins. Might pass WP:NASTRO. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it does show evidence of notability from multiple studies. I'm curious why it's listed as older yet is more magnetically active than the Sun? Praemonitus (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like keep, but an additional view would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 34880 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I did find a paragraph on HD 34880 in a paper by I. I. Romanyuk et al (2013),[2] but I could only access the Russian-language version. Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has a HR number and hence pass criterion one of WP:NASTCRIT. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 174569 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of stars in Aquila, where it is already listed. The system lacks any significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, has a HR number and hence pass criterion one of WP:NASTCRIT. Has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 41162 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has a HR number and hence meets criterion one of the guideline cited above, but this article is really poorly-written and has to be fixed. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of stars in Auriga, where it is already listed. The system lacks any significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 222399 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, has a HR number and hence meets criterion one of the guideline cited above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of stars in Andromeda, where it is already listed. The star lacks any significant coverage; it's just an ordinary, distant, subgiant star with no particularly interesting aspects yet identified. Praemonitus (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(33128) 1998 BU48 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NASTCRIT. Cremastra (u — c) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it has been part of small scale studies and has had its spectrum analysed [3][4] and also there is an occultation prediction [5]. --C messier (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there's enough mention in studies to indicate at least marginal notability. It has a large magnitude range and a slow rotation period, which suggests it is a contact binary with high probability.[6] Praemonitus (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per comments above. Object with characteristics that generate academic interest. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]