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

NGC 1165

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

This galaxy doesn't seem to be notable and I can't find much significant coverage. I don't think it matches the notability of other galaxies I can find on Wikipedia. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The author had added extra evidence to establish WP:SIGCOV. I googled the galaxy and found a lot of references on astronomy sites and in astronomy books. I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but I think the galaxy is well covered. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no relevant secondary sourcing on that page. cseligman and theskylive are not reliable sources for astronomy articles. SIMBAD, SEDS, and NED are all catalog entries. If it has references in books, then those should be added, but a random internet search is not enough to establish notability. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's virtually no evidence of notability. It doesn't appear to have been the subject of detailed study. Praemonitus (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NGC objects (1001–2000). As Praemonitus said it hasn't been subject of detailed study. It is just mentioned in property tables along with dozens if not thousands of galaxies. --C messier (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitomagnetic

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

Stub created replacing a redirect. There is already a section in Gravitoelectromagnetism, pages Gravitomagnetic time delay and Gravitomagnetic clock effect as well as other mentions. Plus, while this page claims to be general, it really only describes the work of Ken Nordtvedt. I cannot justify this page existing, everything is elsewhere, I don't see how it adds anything useful. Also, why does the main section include Redaction in the title, a person attack? Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main section Kenneth Nordvedt Redaction is a straight copy from the page Kenneth Nordvedt. There is also another page with, it appears, the same information at Nordtvedt effect. Probably some more deletion/merging needed. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the cut-and-pasted content. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notiying WP:WikiProject Physics, since Article Alerts missed this one. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or revert to the redirect. The Gravitoelectromagnetism seems adequate for this topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surplus to requirements. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gravitoelectromagnetism – Title violates WP:NOUN, since "gravitomagnetic" is an adjective though this does not apply to redirects, so redirecting seems suitable. Also, any possible content under the name "gravitomagnetism" belongs in the article Gravitoelectromagnetism. After the justified removal of content, there is nothing to merge, except (possibly) the reference. —Quondum 00:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Edited —Quondum 16:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just make it a redirect again. There's no need of AfD for that. Tercer (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no objections to changing it back to a redirect. I will note that a revert to a redirect has to be considered as contested, so to me an AfD concensus appears most appropriate -- no edit wars of course.

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a discussion is necessary, but not an AfD. Now it's too late, but in such cases it's better to open a discussion in the talk page of the article and notify WT:PHYSICS. Tercer (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redirect doesn't seem necessary here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It is a plausible {{R from adjective}}. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy proposed deletions