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

Northolt Branch Observatories (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)

Appears to be a hobbyist observatories or something that has a handful of telescopes. After checking with Wikiproject Astronomy, I got a response that its not notable. Having done a basic WP:BEFORE, I'm not seeing this group meeting WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Science, Astronomy, Europe, Germany, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (from the article creator): I am not going to vote because of WP:COI, but I'd like to point out that the article has been quite outdated. Uncle G has started to expand it a bit with more recent coverage (thanks!), and I hope it can get enough coverage to pass notability standards. Uncle G, I'm not sure if Lintott's book mentions the episode of The Sky at Night that featured the "discovery" of BepiColombo? It's the May 2020 episode ("Locked down but looking up"). That may be a useful addition. Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Uncle G:, can you name the WP:THREESOURCES that you suggest as the bases for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG anchoring purpose? Graywalls (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solex (software) (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)

Product that is entirely sourced to the software developer himself. It does not pass WP:NPRODUCT and a quick WP:BEFORE doesn't indicate there's enough SIGCOV to justify this product's existence on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Astronomy, Computing, and Software. Graywalls (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable as in there isn't many third-party sources talking about the software specifically. Searching on Google shows results that only briefly mention/cite SOLEX for asteroid and comet orbit computations, but do not talk about the software itself. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 04:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wrote this as a partial translation of the Italian Wikipedia article Solex (informatica). What I didn't bother to add were the external links (in the collegamenti esterni section), many of which could be added as references. This includes scientific articles that use the software for computations, as well as independent coverage of the software itself, like [1] (defunct) and [2]. In addition, there are the naming citation for asteroid 5368 Vitagliano, as well as mentions in Asteroids and Dwarf Planets and How to Observe Them (Dymock, 2010). While it's true that a Google search doesn't find many of these, sometimes because they are no longer available online (this sadly includes some that had good coverage, like M. Monaco's Applicazione di nuove metodologie di indagine geometrico-numerica-metrica ed archeoastronomica per l'analisi di documenti romani d'età imperiale. Indagine archeoastronomica, analisi e simulazioni ottenute tramite il software SOLEX 11.0), they still exist(ed). Renerpho (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Let's keep in mind that notability requirements are not identical across all Wikipedia languages. An article that passes requirements for existence in other projects don't necessarily meet en.Wikipedia notability test. Since this is an article about product, it should meet WP:NCORP standard. So, at least two sources, preferably 3 or more sources that are secondary, completely independent of the software developer (can't be churnalism) with significant coverage on the software. The book you mentioned has "SOLEX, written by Aldo Vitagliano, is a free software package that can model many, many aspects of the motions of asteroids and Dwarf Planets.". That's a mention. It's not even remotely close to WP:SIGCOV. "individual.utoronto" is a self-published source. That can't be used for notability purpose. The .fr site you referenced is not SIGCOV. Graywalls (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, understood. I'll leave it in your hands. Renerpho (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there usable sources that are archived, say on the Wayback Machine? HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quipu (cosmic structure) (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)

Standard example of WP:TOOSOON. Proposed cosmology structure based upon a single article which was accepted for publication in January 2025 (a week or two ago), plus a writeup in a popular science magazine (Smithsonian Magazine) a few days ago. No secondary sources, work is far too new to have been analyzed by the wider community. Article was draftified, pointing out that Wikipedia is not for recent proposals or neologisms, only for established science with secondary sources etc. Editor ignored draftification and moved back to main without any attempt to explain or generate a consensus. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Pages such as this belong on Facebook or similar until there is a body of secondary sources, not Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Yep, that's prime WP:TOOSOON territory. Wait for some secondary literature to pick up the term, then try to write an article about it. Sheesh, the sole source hasn't even been formally published yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per above. An alternative would be a redirect to List of largest cosmic structures, where it is linked. Praemonitus (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, please note that the original editor reverted a Draftification, so I am not sure if that will be useful. A redirect looks like a good alternative. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD frequently functions as the "draftification enforcement board" - if that is the consensus and it is not heeded, then there is the base for an admin to act accordingly. - Redirect would be okay IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starseed launcher (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)

I didn't find any significant coverage of this idea in secondary sources, only several mentions of it. The article is sourced with one primary source and one passing mention. Without additional sources, it appears not notable enough for an article. Artem.G (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Spaceflight. Artem.G (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this seems similar to the proposal at interstellar travel#Nanoprobes. Perhaps this article should be merged? Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I think Praemonitus has got it right. This should be sentence or two at interstellar travel#Nanoprobes, where a single proposal source would be okay. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]