Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-433.02 m

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-433.02 m

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

Entirely speculative original research. jps (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earth Similarity Index#Similarity of non-planets to Earth Redirecting would be more beneficial for the reader as that would be most likely what the reader is looking for. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment You removed the citations from PHL before requesting deletion (click here to see what I mean) and labled it as OR, which I find very sneeky imo, especially after PHL cites Borucki et al., 2011 for the planetary info. No OR is happening on Wikipedia itself and I think removing citations to help your AfD do better is very inappropriate. Davidbuddy9 Talk 02:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations or not, this isn't a predicted exomoon. The one actual citation that exists simply speculates that if such a moon existed, it might have certain properties. There is no evidence for it. WP:NOT and WP:SPECULATE for starters. Lithopsian (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the host planet itself appears to be an unconfirmed candidate. It seems premature to be generating this type of weakly substantiated content. It isn't going anywhere; once it's confirmed then an article can be created. Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, [1] this is the only source I found Davidbuddy9 are you sure this isn't complete speculation? I found this source Gawker, but this is talking about the planet KOI-433.02 not "KOI-433.02 m", found these on google scholar, [2] and [3], but also talking about the planet. I can't find anything on the moon except this [4] which I've just confirmed is a reliable source managed by the University of Puerto Rico at Arecibo, however it appears this moon is listed under "Expected Potential Habitable Exomoons" expect potential I'm guessing means possibly possible. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to have an article about KOI-433.02 the planet. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 06:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

self-published webpages are in no way reliable sources for the existence of speculated moons. This planet may not even exist and there is precisely zero evidence for the moon. jps (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

jps I agree with you here. Even the source which "might be" reliable states this moon is only speculation and is not confirmed to exist. I am curious to see if Davidbuddy9 found better sources before I vote delete. I actually would have voted delete immediately had you not been accused of removing sources again. I don't think theses sources right now pass GNG in the least (including the one you removed which were readded). The most reliable source says the moon does not exist. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem:If you looked at the citations you would have found this. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, it say "Expected Potentially Habitable Exomoons". Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per jps, this is purely speculative. If we base notability on numbers or basis on public interest ... this fails. If we based this on reliable sources this also fails. The source phl.upr.edu which may be reliable states this is speculative and not notable. I would prefer this source intact in the future so a neutral judgement can be made. Based on sources provided this is not notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and Lithopsian. This object is purely hypothetical at this time, and there's absolutely no observational evidence for it. Astro4686 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the same article in usperspace too.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't store something in the event this is discovered? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could blank the page or someone might MFD your sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as what concerns me is that nothing is confirmed yet, delete for now until better information is available. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reference consist mostly of listings databases of preliminary/potential candidates. While the databases themselves are notable, the objects contained therein are not. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.