Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems

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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Detecting Earth from distant star-based systems

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is pretty clearly not a notable topic on its own. It's essentially based on a single source: a paper which just came out and is making the rounds in the pop-sci press. It's a mildly interesting result that might warrant a sentence or two in a related article, but there's nowhere near enough here for such a hyper-narrow topic. Wikipedia is not a dumping groud of science headlines. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the above: this is an example of a single very recently published paper that got some press coverage, but isn't otherwise notable. It's an interesting topic, but too soon for a WP article based on just this one new paper. Aldebarium (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is currently flagged as undergoing expansion, so it may improve, but as it stands it does not justify an article that is basically about exoplanets and their detection, with the added spin that if we can detect them, they can detect us. Given that there is no evidence of such a 'they', it is all just one researcher's headline-grabbing self-promotion of what has become a mundane discovery of another batch of exoplanets. This is a classical example of why creating an article for every news story that appears in the popsci press is a bad idea. Unless there are a lot more references out there that get added in the pending edits, Delete.Agricolae (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Earth Transit Zone per Sheik et al. 2020. This is one of the oldest topics in modern SETI and the search for exoplanets, and is important and significant for acquiring target searches. Per the cited study author, the literature for this subject includes Filippova & Strelnitskij 1988; Castellano et al. 2004; Shostak & Villard 2004; Conn Henry et al. 2008; Nussinov 2009; Heller & Pudritz 2016; Wells et al. 2018; and Sheik et al. 2020. Neither popsci nor headline grabbing, but rather the latest results of newer datasets based on TESS and Gaia, building on the original research subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is about detecting earth from distant stars, it is about detecting distant stars that hypothetical LGM might be able to detect earth from - it is just a specialized set of exoplanets of particular interest to LGM-hunters, basically just a cross-categorization. Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't parse your comment. Sheik et al. 2020:

As defined in Heller & Pudritz (2016), the ETZ is the projection of a band around Earth’s ecliptic onto the celestial plane, where ETI observers could detect transits by Earth across the Sun. This band is between 0.520◦ and 0.537◦ wide, centered on the ecliptic, with the variance due to the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit.

[...]

The idea of the ecliptic as a preferred region for a SETI search has been around for a long time (Filippouva & Strelnitskij 1988). Some authors have compiled lists of stars with this preferential geometry (i.e Filippova 1990, 1992; Castellano et al. 2004), while others have proposed searches of the region using both optical and radio telescopes (Shostak & Villard 2004; Conn Henry et al. 2008).

This is all about detecting Earth from distant stars. It is the very subject. The newest paper in question simply builds on this already existing body of research and makes use of the latest TESS and Gaia datasets to further refine and identify potential distant star systems that might be watching us in the Earth Transit Zone. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you could add a few sentences to the Transit (astronomy) article about this. But the article under consideration is merely about one recent paper that counted the number of stars in this part of the sky within a certain distance. That's not the basis for an article. The SETI stuff is a complete red herring. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a single instance of detecting earth from a distant star (that we know of). The summary you give says the same thing as I said - it is about detecting planets that hypothetical LGM with hypothetical characteristics and hypothetical capabilities might hypothetically detect earth. It is nothing but a SETI-fueled projection of our own ability to detect exoplanets onto these hypothetical LGM, not actual detection of earth from other solar systems. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not sound like an argument for deletion, it sounds like some strange bias against SETI. I will therefore let it stand as an example of prejudice. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bias against SETI - a bias in favor of reality. When we don't know that LGM actually exist, nor the form they would take, nor their technological prowess were they to exist, then we haven't the slightest clue what criteria would delimit their ability to observe Earth, and hence what characteristics a planet must have to allow these hypothetical LGM to detect us. As such, this whole topic is really just about our ability to detect exoplanets, projected onto this entirely hypothetical yet incredibly specific type of LGM that just happen to have the exact characteristics and technological development we arbitrarily select for them. Agricolae (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of Earth Transit Zone deserves its own article and encyclopedic treatment, just like all the other zone articles we have. The article under discussion is not based on one paper, but at least eight separate papers alone, and has significant coverage in the literature to merit a stand-alone. The SETI "stuff" isn't a "red herring" at all, it's part of the topic. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As OA of this very newly created article - currently undergoing development and expansion as noted by the {{Under Construction}} tag in the article - I *entirely* agree with the comments and reasons very well described above by User:Viriditas - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a new concept, and older references could be used to prove notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – clearly a notable topic on its own and while a single main source (reported on by multiple other sources) has been sufficient for many other short articles (example), other relevant sources do exist. This could also be added to the article SETI, like I recently suggested on its talk page, but the topic may be broader than what would be appropriate for a section of that article and this article could have more detail than what would be due there. My only concern about it is that it may be a bit too narrow but the article could be broadened in its topic later on by being developed further / moved or could get merged into a broader article once such an article exists. Here is one exemplary source that could be relevant for the broader article. --Prototyperspective (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think this could be part of a more comprehensive article on direct imaging of exoplanets. Right now all we've got is List of directly imaged exoplanets and Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets#Direct_imaging. Praemonitus (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The focus of the article is currently narrow but this is not a reason to delete. The narrow focus arises from the source which has provoked it. As more sources are consulted then we might expect the topic to flesh out. So, do such sources exist? It turns out that they do as here's an entire book on the subject – The Earth as a Distant Planet. This demonstrates the potential of this article, which has only existed for 1 day. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:BITE. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article already has references proving the article passes the general notability guidelines, such as https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/10/22/are-we-being-watched-there-are-509-star-systems-with-a-great-view-of-life-on-earth-say-scientists/amp/ Dream Focus 23:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I find it hard to believe nom followed BEFORE, as they stunningly sent this to AfD after four hours of it being created. What alternatives to deleting were discussed? Glee^anon 00:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It's not a great title and the content is still pretty bad but the topic is a legitimate one. Reyk _YO! 09:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly notable, discussed in scholarly academic sources. Right cite (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by User:Andrew Davidson and User:Dream Focus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 31 October 2020 (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.