Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASP-56

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 keep in one form or another. Even the delete !vote and nomination do not explain why this has to be deleted completely when a potential merge/redirect target exists. So there is no policy-based reason mentioned for outright deletion while there is no consensus whether to keep as a separate article or as a redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2012 but that can be discussed at the talk page. So Why 08:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WASP-56

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

Per WP:NASTCRIT, not notable. See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Time_for_at_least_a_one-liner_about_exoplanets.3F where it was realised that this object was not notable. I couldn't find any published research specifically about this star, only general catalogue listings, and a single paper reporting the discovery of three planets, one of them in orbit about this star. Lithopsian (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my personal opinion anyway as we can construct a decent picture for the reader from information within the 8 references that have data on the star and its planet. Wikipedia has articles on many thousands of small towns with the same or less information available so I am not fussed about the number of stars with exoplanets now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Clearly fails WP:NASTCRIT - indeed I added it to that guideline as an example of a non-notable exoplanet before discovering that this article existed under another title. I spent an hour on NASA ADS, the Exoplanets Encyclopaedia, SIMBAD etc. hunting for sources on either the star or the exoplanet. The only discussion I could find was in the planet's discovery paper, where it is briefly presented as one of three newly detected exoplanets, but found to be unremarkable. No other commentary anywhere, just entries in tables. No attention in the popular media. What (very) little is known about this system is not only uninteresting but also not notable for our purposes. The article creator (Casliber) has been asked to provide sources demonstrating notability several times, but nothing has been forthcoming. Modest Genius ^talk 12:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I'd argue that the Faedi paper actually goes into a fair bit of detail about the system. More than many star systems we have articles on. And there are seven other papers that mention or examine the system, most of which is/are brief mentions I concede. Thing is, based on reliable, sourced information we can construct an article that is more than stubby. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are, at best, a few paragraphs specifically about this object in the Faedi et al paper. But a) they only describe a few basic observational properties, which could be used to fill out an infobox and little more; and b) as the discoverers of this object, they do not constitute 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the scientist(s) who discovered the object' (right at the top of WP:NASTRO). For your other comments, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies, and you keep saying that a more substantial article could be written, but the article has not been expanded in any way and nor have you pointed to the sources that would be required to do so. Even if a start-class article could be written, that still wouldn't satisfy the notability concerns. Modest Genius ^talk 19:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2012, at least until it is covered by more publications. Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have one good reference that has significant content. Searching, there are also other reliable references that have small amounts. There are also several tertiary type database sites that list this object. Overall Wikipedia is better off if we have such an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please point us to the other references? None are cited in the article, and I was unable to find any other sources that had more than an entry in a table. Modest Genius ^talk 10:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 7 July 2017 (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.