Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-4878.01: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:02, 15 April 2016

KOI-4878.01

(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) 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 16:08, 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 18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:50, 11 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 in 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. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) Astro4686 (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 *'''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''']] 18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 *'''Delete.''' [[WP:NOTCATALOGUE]] applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under [[WP:NASTRO]] could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 20:50, 11 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 in 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. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03]]; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.) [[User:Astro4686|Astro4686]] ([[User talk:Astro4686|talk]]) 02:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)