Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-4878.01

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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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.