Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-124b

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-124b

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

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. No peer-reviewed coverage of this specific object, or of a small number of objects including this system. All coverage is of bulk exoplanet discoveries. No significant popular press coverage. No claims to notability in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wish there was significant information about the planet. But the article contains nothing but entries pulled from a table, doesn't need an article for that. The only information not already present under List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft seems to be derived numbers, which probably qualify as WP:OR anyway. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the author of the article I have a few things to say. When I originally made the article I knew it was a somewhat obscure topic, but I made it because if anybody ever needed the information, it would've already been conglomerated into a Wikipedia article. Only one of my sources contained a table which had lots of information and the other 2 citations were to regular webpages. Finally I see no reason why integrating real numbers and statistics into my article from reliable sources that I cited, isn't original research. Besides those reasons, I do somewhat agree with what you said about the List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft but at the same time the list only mentions a handful of the things my article did and doesn't have pictures either. In the future if someone wanted to contribute new information about Kepler-124b to Wikipedia, it would be much easier to add a sentience or 2 to an article then to add a whole new column to a list to less effectively contribute their facts. It's easier to convey complicated information and more of it, if it's written down rather than a table entry. In the future if more, noteworthy information is discovered regarding Kepler-124b an article will be of even more importance. If the article seems bare it's because there is almost no information about the planet online currently, but like I said in the future it's highly likely, there will be more discovered on this topic which offers no reason to delete the article just to have it rewritten.Grapefruit17 (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find this topic interesting enough to edit the article, but unfortunately I couldn't find much more information than was already included. I read through WP:NASTRO and the discussions on the talk page about exoplanets, and the discussion seems somewhat split on whether or not exoplanets are notable in and of themselves. Certainly the first several were, but now that they are becoming more common, some fall on the side of requiring independent coverage (essentially following NASTRO) and others on the side of keeping all exoplanets that meet certain objective observable criteria (no consensus was reached regarding the exact criteria). If pressed for a !vote I would probably err on the side of keeping it, as honestly this is the sort of thing I would probably use Wikipedia to find (being an astronomy nerd since I was a little kid), but I realize that I'm very likely in the minority on this one. Cthomas3 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic itself is quite interesting, it's very difficult to say keep or delete in this case. I use WP a lot to find information which you sometimes can't find on other sites. In this case I love WP as it at least shows some info in one place. I actually prefer to keep it but it's not easy to justify it here.--ClrView (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the article had been put up for deletion I've been checking in on this discussion and the article itself. I recently found that that article had undergone major revisions that in my opinion greatly improved the article. My stance on weather or not the page should be deleted is still the same(keep), but now that it's been edited it seems to be on par in terms of quality with pages not currently on the possible deletion list. Like I said in my previous comment, Wikipedia is often used to find information on obscure things, and in the near future a lot more could be discovered in regards to exoplanets.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Improved or not, the article still has effectively no information that is not already in List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft - in reality, it can't, the information doesn't exist. In addition, there are problems with the references:
- - Open Exoplanet Catalogue is effectively a wiki. Not allowed as a source on Wikipedia.
  - The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia reference is effectively an infobox, information already on the list.
  - Exoplorer is a single-author hobby site. Not allowed as a source on Wikipedia.
  - The Planetary Society has no information about kepler-124b, it's simply fluff about finding exoplanets.

There is only one usable source for the article, and the information it has replicates what is already in the list of exoplanets. There's no point in expanding a line from a table into a full article if we don't have additional information to provide. Tarl N. (discuss) 07:56, 2 September 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.