Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-5806.01

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. Sandstein 11:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-5806.01

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

Unconfirmed candidate of a possible planet at another star. No indication of notability. Google returns 15 hits for "KOI-5806" which consists of false matches such as license plates, Wikipedia + Wikipedia clone pages, and two indiscriminate astronomical-catalog-listings. Indiscriminate catalogs or lists are not evidence of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-5). (Edit: a Google search on "KOI 5806.01" gave 13 hits, with basically the same outcome.) The two refs in the article are catalog/list type.

Consider that over the years actually-discovered-planets will grow into the thousands and eventually millions. We should not have bare catalog-listings of statistics on millions of non-notable planets, much less hypothetical planets. We could not even have indiscriminate "list of" articles containing millions of planets. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Someone looking for bare statistics on non-notable astronomical bodies should check an astronomical catalog. Alsee (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Alsee (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think articles about individual KOIs probably should be deleted in general unless there is something particularly unique about them which has been noticed in numerous papers. jps (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at nominating other KOIs for deletion, but let's let this AFD run as a trial balloon. Assuming this is deleted then maybe I'll group the other KOIs in one AFD listing. People are invited to comment on the advisability (or inadvisability) of grouping the other KOI's into a future AFD. Alsee (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged 7 KOI- articles for notability. None of those articles have refs supporting notability, and I spent a lot of time searching sources on them. Non-notable. Maybe I'll list those as a batch. There's also over a hundred exoplanet articles listed in Category:Exoplanets_discovered_by_Kepler_(spacecraft). Checking some of the others in the category at random, most are are non-notable but it looks like there there are exceptions. It's going to take take quite a while to properly check them. Alsee (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consider both these sources [1] and [2] reliable. This falls under "Data of Potentially Habitable Worlds" so there is some confirmation they exist. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, that's just wrong. Candidates by definition have not been confirmed. jps (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning delete) In this AfD and similar others I see comments across the board to the effect that proven existence of a planet/moon/etc. is a prerequisite or at least a big plus to keep the article. Can someone explain why (WP:CBALL is not enough)? I mean, if there is WP:GNG or WP:NASTCRIT #3 coverage it does not matter if the object eventually is proven not to exist (the subject is notable, even though it is about a speculative topic), and if there is not then it does not matter either (since then it is not notable, at least yet). Tigraan (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do see WP:NASTRO. I didn't see anyone else link to it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is a reply to my question, but if so, the closest I can find in all of WP:NASTRO is "the fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability" - which says that existence is not a sufficient condition, but it does not say it is necessary. (And I do not think it should be, per above.) Tigraan (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existence isn't necessary, but non-existing is a definite negative in cases with borderline coverage. A non-existing object has zero likelyhood of having on-going relevance or accumulating additional notability. And it's particularly bad to have an article on a non-notable non-existing object. Here, someone created a batch of articles on real objects, unconfirmed objects, and purely hypothetical objects, that have little or no coverage. The articles are backed up by indiscriminate catalog listings - basically the equivalent of citing phone book listings to support a batch of biographical articles. The fact that my name, address, and phone number were published in a "Reliable Source" phone book does not establish notability. The article creator has also been spamming "Earth Similarity Index" everywhere which has negligible accepted scientific acceptance, they have been hyping the habitability&alien-life angle everwhere including purely hypothetical moons, they have been blocked for using sock accounts to multiple-vote in AFD's and RFC's (it looks like 5 or more votes in some cases), and they also used the sock account to do a bogus Good Article review and promote they own work to Good Article status. Alsee (talk) 09:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the nominator's formulation of the issues. This exoplanet candidate should be subject to WP:GNG and WP:NASTCRIT, and it does not fulfill either. Regarding NASTCRIT #3 (as pointed out by Tigraan), there were no results when I did a full-text search for this candidate exoplanet in NASA's ADS search engine. More broadly, I agree that the KOIs shouldn't have their own articles unless they fulfill either WP:GNG or WP:NASTCRIT. Otherwise, there would be a flood of articles which needlessly duplicate basic catalog information. Astro4686 (talk) 19:27, 7 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} 14:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 9 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. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43, recheck WP:NASTRO. It says The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability. Confirmation of existence definitely doesn't pass the threshold for notability. Advancing technology is going to find millions of exoplanets in the coming years. We should not be a catalog listing raw physical data on millions of non-notable objects. Anyone looking for that sort of indiscriminate raw scientific data is better off going to a dedicated scientific astronomical catalog. Alsee (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of my citing NASTRO was that we aren't even to the point where we have a confirmed instanced where we'd begin considering notability. I'm far from proposing a catalogue of even confirmed exoplanets, which hopefully should be clear from my mention of NOTCATALOGUE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest a solid notable article for Wikipedia, delete as there's nothing solid to suggest better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 12 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.