Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy

Not to be confused with Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astrology.
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts
Shortcut

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:
Purge page cache watch

Astronomy

LGGS J004246.86+413336.4

LGGS J004246.86+413336.4 (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)

The page is about a star which barely appears in any papers and isn't really notable. Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG.

List of brightest stars by distance

List of brightest stars by distance (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)

No evidence that this specific type of ranking has received any attention, fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Newly created list, actively under development, weak deletion rationale (did you search for any?), and nominator already attempted to PROD in violation of PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected.. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By that reasoning, you may just abolish Prod. My reasoning might have convinced the creator, in which case this was an uncontroversial Prod. You never know upfront. "Newly created list, actively under development" is not a keep reason, if there are no sources about the subject. And yes, I did search. Do you have any non-weak reasons to keep, actually? Fram (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely welcome to try and change PROD, rather than using it in a manner that is outside its current scope. If someone's added content to an article in the last 24 hours, that's pretty much SKYISBLUE evidence that that user would object to the article being deleted.
    And yes, being in progress is absolutely a reason to not bring something to AfD until it's fully taken shape. "Brightest stars by distance" is not an obviously non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, so we're not clearly saving someone pointless effort. Since you didn't find anything, I'd be interested in what you did for a BEFORE search; I would find it odd if this concept is mentioned nowhere--I think it much more likely to have been mentioned with differing phraseology. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to try different phraseology and then berate me for not using the one you eventually have some success with, if that happens. There is no need to change Prod or how I approach it. Fram (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there's no need to change PROD. You have now been reminded, politely, that what you just did with it violated community expectations. If you believe it should be OK to PROD articles people are working on, then you should seek to modify how PROD reads, because if you continued to use it like that it could be construed as TE. Better to just go straight to AfD if you're 1) sure that something should not have an article, and 2) other people are actively editing/expanding it. In this particular case, a BLAR to List of brightest stars, which is already sortable by distance, would also have been an option, since there's no prohibition against trying it when other people might object. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I think making two list in the article based on first one based on brightness and second one based on distance and brightness in the List of brightest stars by merging both article or developing it as a standalone article like it is now and expending it. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Live and let live. Maybe someone besides me (the one who started the article) will wonder what the brightest star is beyone Sirius, and then what the brightest star is beyond that. I wanted to know, I didn't find a list on Wikipedia, so I made one. Laura240406 seems to appreciate it, because she did a lot of work on it. I don't think you can prove that no one has ever paid attention to this ranking! And I think the policy that everything should be deleted unless someone proves that it has been mentioned in the "literature" is a bad policy. I don't see why people insist of enforcing it. Articles should be kept if there are people who find them interesting. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yeah, you are right Eric Kvaalen. I can't understand why Fram is interested in Afd, i can't understand is he misusing the feature. I can't understand what is problem in making article that are same but tell a different thing about the topic in a very different way and i can't understand why he is doing Afd in just 24 hours or even one two hours or less after the uploading of the article. This is a literal misuse of the Afd feature. I think talking with the user who created the article should be the first priority and then give atleast one or two week time or giving how much time the creator has asked for to improve is the way of doing things. Everyone here is for improving each others articles not putting Afd on each other articles like what Fram is repeatedly doing. I had already seen Afd on my many articles and some are kind of reasonable for Afd but others like List of B-type Stars, Extending the list of stars to atleast 800ly or even 1,000 ly are not by any means. My B-type Stars article was deleted because why? The reason was that a category was for B-type Stars was there but it doesn't include those many B-type stars that doesn't have it's own article and that was the reason i created but due to the probable misuse of the Afd Feature, It was deleted at the end and i doesn't had time to rescue beacause of my some exam related things and i doesn't have time like Fram to put article on Afd and create problems for the creator.
I think some kind of rules should be establish on giving time to users and knowing there reason and giving time to improve it, if the creator has improved the no need of Afd and if not then the user should be free for discussion of an Afd. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article even has good reference. I nowadays fear to create good articles like before or improve article because of this quick putting of Afd features like what Fram is doing. I can't understand why he is unnecessarily creating problems for creators before the list has completed.
Yes, If the user has created something and left the article alone with no update from other users or creator for months. Then it could be a candidate for an Afd. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some basic rules that should be followed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Things to be done before doing an Afd.
These basic rules should be followed before doing an Afd or anything like that. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idea Infact i am wanting to make a separate list for Giant, Supergiant and Hypergiant Stars, but is in doubt that this guy Fram will probably again do unnecessary drama and at the end will destroy my hard works by misusing the Afd feature like what he want to do with yours article. That is why i am not creating the respective article as of now. Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Triplicate vote struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the rationale for this list escapes me. We already have list of brightest stars and List of most luminous stars. This just appears to be an odd conglomeration of the two criteria, hence failing WP:NLIST. How would one even search for such a list? Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply to Parejkoj below. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A similar, though not identical, list was deleted in the past. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought of making that as well. But I can't find enough information. All I know is that the most luminous star closer than Sirius is Alpha Centauri, and Sirius is the most luminous less than or equal to its distance. Beyond that I don't have enough information. I wish the article you mention had not been deleted. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Also not clear to me what the point of this list is. Is there any secondary coverage of this type of ordering of stars? I'm only saying "weak" because this at least is not the kind of list that really needs to be curated once its made (unlike e.g. "list of quasars", which has some dubious entries). - Parejkoj (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of the list is to show what might be called the record-breaking stars -- the ones that are the brightest beyond a given distance. I was wondering what far-away stars I could see, so I asked this question. What I found is that Deneb is very far away, even though it's one of the bright stars. I don't know what the brightest star is further than Deneb. I do know that Eta Carina is the brightest of all the stars that are as far as it or further. These facts are not things you can find or find easily from the list of brightest stars. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous AFD. I don't see evidence that this topic is notable and that it's anything other than Wikipedia editors engaging in WP:OR, making lists for the sake of making lists with unending statistical combinations. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's rather insulting. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not.

    The point of the list is to show what might be called the record-breaking stars -- the ones that are the brightest beyond a given distance. I was wondering what far-away stars I could see, so I asked this question. What I found is that Deneb is very far away, even though it's one of the bright stars. I don't know what the brightest star is further than Deneb. I do know that Eta Carina is the brightest of all the stars that are as far as it or further. These facts are not things you can find or find easily from the list of brightest stars.

    Can you explain how this is not OR, instead of feigning such grievous insult? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four-hundred-year solar minimum of the 21st century

Four-hundred-year solar minimum of the 21st century (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)

WP:OR, cherrypicked sources. Title seems to be an invention by the article creator (or a translation from somewhere?) Article claims e.g. that the minimum will go from 2020 to 2053, and "it is expected to reduce the average global temperature by up to 1.0–1.5°C.", but the current second source[1] gives "They named the most likely scenario as a decrease in solar activity in the period up to 2100, but this will lead to only a small decrease in global temperature of about 0.08 ° C"? Url for third source is same as for second source, and first source is an editorial, not a peer-reviewed paper. I draftified the article to give a chance to correct these issues and let others have a look, but it was put back into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The plausibility and impacts of a grand solar minimum occurring in the 21st century have been discussed in the academic literature (e.g., [2], 2010; [3], 2013; [4], 2013; [5], 2015; [6], 2015), but I do not think that the coverage is WP:SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant its own dedicated article. Furthermore, more recent data from solar cycle 25 suggests that this scenario is unlikely. I think mentioning a hypothesized future minimum and its impacts in Solar minimum#Grand solar minima and maxima would be sufficient. I do not think a merge would be appropriate because the current content and refs are not suitable as mentioned by Fram. A relevant quote from [7] (2025):
"While earlier studies hypothesized that solar activity could decline to levels similar to those of the Maunder Minimum (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2011; Anet et al., 2013), more recent solar observations suggest a different trajectory. In particular, sunspot number (SSN) records for Solar Cycle 25 already exceed those of Cycle 24, indicating that solar activity is currently increasing (SIDC – Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, 2024). As such, a Dalton-like or Gleissberg-type minimum is considered more plausible in the near future."
As a side note, the first reference in the article is from Valentina Zharkova who seems to be the main source in popular media claiming that there is an upcoming grand solar minimum. Some of their work also appears to be very climate-change-denial adjacent. There is a Live Science article rebutting Zharkova's grand solar minimum: [8]. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Zharkova had a paper on this grand solar minimum retracted [9] (PubPeer link: [10]), and her past work has been highlighted not so positively in Science Alert [11] and [12], Slate [13], and Ars Technica [14]. From what I gather, this modern grand minimum is a climate change denial talking point. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge whatever is salvageable into Solar cycle 25 which already has a "Predictions" section where this will belong in case there are any peer-reviewed studies that still make such predictions. --hroest 15:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IZ Aquarii

IZ Aquarii (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. Unfortunately the proposed deletion was removed, which i didn't expected for such an obscure article, but this star is not brighter than Mv +6 and is not in the HR catalogue as well, hence does not pass the first criterion. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane MacArthur

Jane MacArthur (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)

Nomination: Notability questioned. 3 of the sources are from own site. Promotional? ash (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what? We might say that these citations are WP:PRIMARY, and so do not count towards WP:N. But that's not an issue, there are plenty of other WP:RS here as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You seem to be cherry picking. I questioned her notability, period. The article discloses that she studied, she is the member of a few councils, she watched a space launch, she won a social media competition, and she may or may not write for a small magazine. How is this notable ash (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're changing the nomination? It's about you not seeing the WP:RS sources as adequate weight, rather than you wanting to discount the other primary sources. Any other nominations you're planning to use later? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, can I? Would you mind terribly if I bolded the first sentence? Or if I put a semi-colon instead of a full-stop after the word "site"? ash (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NACADEMIC criteria are clear and undisputable. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence that she is an FRAS, the source cited above is about Ian Ridpath, not her. If you check her page you will see no mention of it. She may have been elected to the board, but the source provided does not verify that. No indications of anything close to a pass of WP:NPROF, plus lots of problems. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum after checking the sources, many if the claims in the article are not verified by the sources provided. For instance the claim of election to the RAS council is sourced to the organization webpage which has no such statement. No sources for her education and more unverified claims which I did not see on her web page. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: You are wrong – the source above isn't just about Ridpath. Her election (among others) is mentioned on that page in the "New Fellows" section: "The following were put forward for election as Fellows of the Society on 12 October 2012...". Bridget (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong, edited.
However, according to both Royal Astronomical Society and what is on the society webpage a "Fellow" is just another name for "Member" for which students can apply. For WP:NPROF we only consider "Fellow" when these are, to quote, a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor such as for APS, MRS, FRS etc. Hence FRAS does not pass WP:NPROF#C3. My vote remains Strong Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I completely agree with what Ldm1954 has said. I don't believe that being a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society can be compared with being a Fellow of, for example, the Royal Society. Someone with specific knowledge of the Royal Astronomical Society can correct me, if necessary, but I suspect that being a Fellow just means that one satisfies some minimal qualification and has paid one's dues. Elizabeth MacArthur may become notable in the future but she's nowhere near being notable at present as her publication and citation record is very modest. Athel cb (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article wrongfully says she's a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, which she's not. The RAS site (primary source) doesn't list her as a fellow and in a short bio [15] doesn't mention she's a fellow. The Astronomy & Geophysics only lists her as 'put forward for election' but there's no announcement for her being elected. She was elected as a council member from 2019 to 2022 (the RAS is a charity under UK law), but again, not a fellow [16]. There's no SIGCOV of her and doesn't meet any other WP:NACADEMIC criteria. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy proposed deletions

fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Astronomy
Marcações: