Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 222582 b 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HD 222582 b m

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

This object does not exist. It is an entirely hypothetical moon of a known exoplanet, that might be potentially habitable if it did exist. Te article is currently a single sentence, although the previous version was considerably longer. Lithopsian (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NASTCRIT, old version failed WP:SPECULATION. No real content at all,crh23 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with the above. No significant sources exist to make this noteworthy. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-433.02 m. jps (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete since there is no there, there. Dkendr (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and crh23. Astro4686 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I understand the removal of the undisputed OR, but why remove the sources as well? Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing poor sources is part of editing. jps (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable purely fictional moon. Note: This article was created by a user now blocked for socking. It's part of a campaign to spam the fringe and speculative work of one researcher (or research group) across wikipedia. COI seems likely. Alsee (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet convincing of encyclopedia material. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 11 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.