Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:09, 9 April 2016

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. As with most KOIs, we should wait until confirmation as there are likely to be false positives. jps (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. bd2412 T 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value is a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. Astro4686 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy|list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Praemonitus|Praemonitus]] ([[User talk:Praemonitus|talk]]) 16:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Merge''' all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation. [[User:BD2412|<font style="background:gold">'''''bd2412'''''</font>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
+*'''Delete.''' KOIs should not be exempt from either [[WP:GNG]] or [[WP:NASTRO]]. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value is a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. [[User:Astro4686|Astro4686]] ([[User talk:Astro4686|talk]]) 23:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)