Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-418b

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. Just noting that "no references" is indeed an important reason for deletion, see WP:V. Sandstein 08:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-418 b[edit]

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

No references. Regards— ~ THE INFI NITE SPACE X 20:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on the whole, I wouldn't suggest deleting articles simply because they have no references. A bot could do that. In the particular case of astronomical objects, they would be deleted for lack of notability. Wikipedia has general notability policies, but there are special notability guidelines for astronomical objects. There are four main criteria, and only one of them can realistically apply to exoplanets: "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works ... (with) ... significant commentary on the object" I won't vote either way on whether this article should be deleted, but will offer my opinion that not every planet is automatically notable. Lithopsian (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no significant independent interest in this object. A general Google search and a Google news search find no media interest, just a lot of catalog entries. A Google Scholar search finds the paper announcing the discovery and only two papers that cite it. Until media or scientific interest is shown, this is not notable. RichardMathews (talk) 20:04, 9 December 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.