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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to astronomy.

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[edit]

SMC 018136[edit]

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

Definitely no significant coverage in literature and therefore does not meet WP:NASTRO. Either delete the page or redirect it to list of largest stars. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest stars. Non-notable topic by itself, but suitable for a list article. 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

PMMR 62[edit]

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

Not exactly sure why I created this article. Anyway, does not meet WP:SIGCOV and therefore not WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to the list of largest stars. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The {{Notability}} tag is in the article since 2021 and the notability problem was never resolved. Fail WP:NASTRO. Also, you were the one who created this article.

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HV 888[edit]

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

No significant coverage in literature and only exists on the basis of being a star with an extremely large radius. Does not meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: the star "HV 888" is mentioned in several studies of the LMC, although I don't think it satisfies the criteria for significant coverge. A redirect to List of largest stars should suffice for now. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of largest known stars. This is one of the many articles created on the basis of a very large stellar radius, without concerning if they would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Carl Rufus[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:ACAD. Only thing that comes close to WP:GNG is a obituary in Popular Astronomy from 1948. nf utvol (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Discovery of book reviews make sufficient case for WP:AUTHOR and papers published brings bare minimum for WP:NPROF, especially considering pre-internet era.nf utvol (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, Canada, and Michigan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As well as the two obituaries already listed in the article, I added six reviews of two books, making a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because one is an edited volume). I think for an academic of his pre-internet time, that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above, and NASA ADS shows he has a fairly extensive list of papers published (~72), in most cases as sole author. Praemonitus (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadarou Sare[edit]

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

The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [1] and [2] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [3] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [4] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [5] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [6] is the subject's company's website. [7] is an advertising website. [8] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Astronomy, Engineering, Spaceflight, Africa, Ivory Coast, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the deletion discussion above, most links given are primary or simple confirmation of employment/biographical info. The sourcing doesn't pass RS guidelines and there isn't much else I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RX Telescopii[edit]

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

This star fails the the notability test, including the criteria for astronomical objects. 1. It is not visible to the naked eye (the cutoff was set at 6.0), 2. it is not in any high-importance catalog (see the RX Telescopii page on SIMBAD), 3. it was never the subject of non-trivial works and 4. it was not discovered before 1850. SIMBAD cites 21 references for this star, but they are only large catalogs that cite hundreds to millions of objects. In 2020, it was thought to be the largest known star at a radius of ≈1900 R_☉, but it used a highly inaccurate distance and newer estimates give radii of 300 or 800 R_☉.

Although this is a deletion discussion, I suggest merging into List of stars in Telescopium, for saving page history. Deletion discussions generally have a larger participation than merge discussions and hence a more well-defined consensus. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the fact that it was considered one of the largest known stars is significant - the recalculating of it as a smaller object helps readers understand how scientists come to conclusions, realise they're incorrect with further information. The historical claim will be lost on any list page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this information can be added to the List of largest known stars article. I found another radius of 879 R_☉ using the angular diameter and a distance of 2189 parsecs, which is corrected for removing the excess of astrometric noise.[9]. Then, it can be added to the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is the star's latest and most accurate diameter means it is too small for the list unless slotted into the somwhat arbitrary "The following well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison." section. I'd prefer to keep the article as is where information is in one place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is already in the list with a radius of 716 R_☉. I believe that these sizes of 716 and 872 R_☉ are more reliable than the 320 R_☉ from Gaia DR3, because they are consistent with the star's spectral type (Other stars with similar spectral types like Antares, Betelgeuse, RW Cygni, VV Cephei have similar sizes), and the Gaia's radius uses a spectrum-derived distance, but User:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer told that these spectra are generally of very low resolution (50×50px) and can lead to misleading values. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in Telescopium or List of largest known stars. There is very little substantial information published for "RX Tel"; hardly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. This is just another catalog object that has been WP:OR'd into what looks like something important but is really just a grab bag of catalog entries. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have editors arguing for Delete, Keep, Merging and Redirection, so another week/days of discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UW Aquilae[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NASTRO and therefore not WP:GNG; hardly any coverage in reliable sources. Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CU Note: The main author was a sock - it would have been a candidate for G5 deletion had Ozzie10aaaa not done a fair bit of tidying up on the article - their thoughts on its retention or otherwise would probably be relevant. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are sources that indicate its notable per [10],--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? All the ones I could find are catalogues which do not establish notability. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a couple for studies that make mention of "UW Aql", but no more than a few sentences. I'm on the fence about this one. Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest known stars, where it is mentioned. This is fairly an obscure star, it doesn't has even a Henry Draper or HIP designation despite its modest brightness of 8.8. I was planning to redirect it to List of stars in Aquila, but it fails the criteria of inclusion for these lists.

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't redirect to List of largest known stars as that page is a redirect. At least when I edit Wikipedia, redirects show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect to List of largest stars because the name changed recently. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of largest stars which is the target of the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 11:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). "Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:

Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.

Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.

... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...

There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are sources that mention the figure for it to be notable. However cleanup unsourced and poorly cited information.

SKAG123 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy proposed deletions[edit]

SLIM (software) (via WP:PROD on 3 February 2024)