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]

• Delete. To repeat my comments from WT:AST: "There are dozens of amateur observatories in just the London area that send asteroid observations to the Minor Planets Center e.g. [1]. I don't see anything particularly unusual about this one. Their telescopes are small hobbyist instruments; admittedly they indicate a serious hobbyist, but no more than you would find at a typical local astronomy society. I was unable to find any substantial coverage on Google Scholar or ADS. Of the references currently cited in the article, there are two unreliable blogs, a Facebook page, and a dead link. The NBC article has merely one sentence that mentions this observatory in passing. The only source with substantial coverage is the HNA article, which appears to be a German local newspaper; I cannot assess its reliability. Even if we accept HNA in good faith, a single source isn't enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG." A quick search did not lead me to additional reliable sources. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can point to substantial coverage that I've missed. Modest Genius ^talk 14:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Modest Genius: Yeah, unfortunately I cannot am not sure if I can add any further sigcov that goes beyond passing mentions. [2] (about 2024 YR4) mentions me with attribution, but again, that's just a mention, like many others that were published about that story in the past few weeks that quoted me. Renerpho (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Struck/edited, as I'm not so sure about this anymore. Renerpho (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We did a couple of TV interviews in the late 2010s and early 2020s, about what we do at NBO. I'll see if I can find recordings... Renerpho (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are the owner and/or operator of the observatory, then you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as well as with the article itself. I don't think we can weight the opinion of a user with a CoI. Posting 13 separate comments (more than everyone else combined) doesn't help your case either. Modest Genius ^talk 12:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Modest Genius: Yes. This discussion started with a self-report at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Renerpho. I had assumed you came here from there. Renerpho (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the disclosure, which seems very relevant here. I had not seen it, because it wasn't mentioned in this discussion. I was alerted to this AfD via WT:AST. Modest Genius ^talk 18:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  [3] -- Interview from Feb. 5th, which got published today. It's not independent (considering it's an interview with me), but maybe it's worth adding, I don't know. Some pictures of the observatory around 2:40... some discussion of what we do, and what David Rankin has got to do with it. The interview with David (same playlist) is without my direct contribution, and he talks about me a bit, although I think he doesn't specifically name the observatory... Renerpho (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found one of them (2019),[4] discussing [5][6]. We did another longer one in 2018 from Northolt directly, but I can't find a recording right now. Renerpho (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Found one more (2018);[7] not the one I was referring to there in the previous comment, I'm not sure that one is available online. Renerpho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's a third one (from 2017).[8] Very brief one, and a bit improvised. It's no coincidence that all three come from the same YouTube channel. They're the only ones we talked to who seem to have their recordings available online. Renerpho (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:SIRS Be completely independent of the article subject. pieces in which the organization itelf is actively involved can not be considered independent. They're not forbidden from being cited, but they simply don't lend credit towards notability Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Graywalls: I think [9] passes that bar. I wasn't even aware that that story had been covered since 2020 (and outside Lintott's book which this is apparently based on) before searching for it now. Renerpho (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This NBC News story from 2018 goes into a bit more detail about what we do, even though it's also just a couple of sentences. The situation is similar for This Livescience article from 2019. This is an interview we did with QHYCCD, the producer of the camera we used at that time; it's not exactly independent coverage though.

  There are a couple of papers related to our collaboration with IAWN, including [10][11][12]; only the Apophis campaign was one that we were involved in beyond just collecting data (compare, for example, the 2021 section at [13]). The 2022 campaign got some news coverage as well, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage (example). There's also this short paper, which unfortunately came just too late for the radar folks at Goldstone to adjust their pointing... Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are dozens of amateur observatories in just the London area that send asteroid observations to the Minor Planets Center -- While technically true, most of them are inactive, or have never observed any Near Earth asteroids. Our most active station (Z80) is at #37 in the all-time list worldwide, professional observatories included.[14] (Some of the codes on Peter Birtwhistle's map don't appear in that list because they've never observed anything.) As of 9 February 2025, 2859 of all 151553 observations in discovery MPECs (or about 2%) come from that station.[15] Renerpho (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For the BepiColombo (2020 GL2) story, this IFLScience article from 2024 may be a good addition. At least it has more than just a few sentences (the entire article is about something we did). Renerpho (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This popsci.com article goes into more detail about the 2019 story covered by Livescience that I mentioned above. It may pass sigcov. Renerpho (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Outfox Magazine, a (now defunct?) Canadian magazine, ran a feature about us a couple of years ago, but I don't think that was ever available online. I could look up the details (issue number, pages etc.) if needed. Renerpho (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe there were articles in some London newspapers around 2017-2019, about the observatory in general; I'm not even sure which ones. Either way, those will only have been available in print, I think (I've looked online and couldn't find anything). Renerpho (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If coverage is limited to blip of coverage around 2018, it may fail WP:SUSTAINED Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be worth getting a bit more input on the nature of the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:49, 25 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]

• Keep, there are already a host of secondary sources and news outlets about this structure, and there has been some media mentions that qualifies criteria 3 of WP:NASTCRIT. Keep in mind that WP:TOOSOON is a personal essay, not a general guideline like WP:NASTCRIT, so I am not sure it can be solely used to justify deletion. The article should be expanded and have a cleanup instead to comply with the quality standards. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article should remain and it will be expanded as and when more information becomes available 115.113.220.51 (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Galaxy filament where this article is not linked.--Oneiros (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify because there simply aren't viable sources. The original publication is obviously primary, and pop-science news is, well, pop-science news: prone to hype, exaggeration, overselling both certainty and novelty... Merging text that is not based on reliable and independent sources would be preserving unsuitable text. We shouldn't do that. XOR'easter (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I guess we will see if there is any more info. I agree that there aren't enough sources for now. Procyon117 (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: - it's too soon, but not sure if we should merge or userfy. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Praemonitus --cyclopia^speak! 18:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]