Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar-3

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 merge from Qatar-3b. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar-3[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NASTRO. The only published research appears to be the discovery paper for a non-notable hot-Jupiter exoplanet (Qatar-3b, fairly longstanding article but possible also not notable). No popular coverage. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NASTRO, but also... can we all just take a moment to marvel at the fact that "non-notable exoplanet" is now a thing? That certainly wouldn't have been the case a few decades ago! PianoDan (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage. Perhaps some guidelines can be added to WP:NASTRO as to what constitutes a notable exoplanet discovery? Maybe as a minimum its confirmed in an independent publication and/or its orbit has been refined? Praemonitus (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per lack of information. Maybe we should merge this article to the planet one because of the lack of information about the host, and only one paper covers it. 400Weir (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the exoplanet's article. We keep having these discussions, and I have yet to see a convincing argument for why there should be separate articles for an exoplanet and the otherwise non-notable star it orbits. But I think the name of the merged article should be the star's name. We should have one article for each exo-solar system, named after the star. We can have redirects for the planet names.PopePompus (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PopePompus. Tercer (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The merge could be the other way round (the article about the planet is merged with the parent star); as is also sometimes done with other exoplanetary systems. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are recommending here. Do you think the title of the merged page should be the name of the star, or the name of the planet?PopePompus (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The star. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.PopePompus (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought, without having followed every discussion in detail, that there was a general (not universal) consensus to merge to the star when the star was notable or there was a multi-planet system notable beyond just the notability of one planet, but merge to the planet when the star was not individually notable. This star does not appear to be notable in itself, whereas the planet *may* be notable. Lithopsian (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A decision about which way round the merger should be would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Is *anyone* arguing that the star and planet articles should be merged, and the merged article should be named after the planet? If so, what should be done in situations where there is a non-notable star that has several notable planets?PopePompus (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the title of the merged article is relevant for the AfD. In any case, this was discussed in WikiProject Astronomy, and the consensus was to merge under the star's name, as it can be done consistently for all exoplanets. Tercer (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely. So I think we should just start merging the articles in situations like this one without having any AfD or related discussion at all. This situation pops up again and again, prompting the same multi-week discussion amongst the same people. Let's just merge them as soon as we notice them, on our own without discussion (be bold!) and if people complain we can then have a discussion about that.PopePompus (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is a star with a notable planet not therefore itself notable? Given the countless number of stars, aside from being unusually big or serving as an historical reference point in the sky, what else would serve as a point of notability? BD2412 T 00:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well in my opinion, the issue is not whether the star is notable. It's how articles about stars with exoplanets should be organized. We have seen a number of articles about stars which would not be notable were it not for the fact that they have exoplanets. Those pages tend to repeat much of the information that is also available in the separate article about the exoplanet, because that information has to be repeated to establish the notability of the star. So why not put the information about the star and all of its planets in a single article? That will reduce the amount of duplicated text and references (which makes it easier to keep the articles current and mutually consistent in the future), and provide a single place to find all the info about an entire stellar system. Since very little is known about most individual exoplanets at this point, and additional information is apt to be gathered very slowly, a single article about the entire system is not apt to be excessively long. I see no point in maximizing the number of separate Wikipedia articles by making a set of articles each of which has the minimum amount of notability to survive a AfD debate. Let's choose quality over quantity.PopePompus (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but it seems to me that the case for notability of the planet in this case is based on its proximity to the star rather than some specific quality of the planet. BD2412 T 05:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - What then are you recommending? Leaving both articles as they are? Merging them (if so, with what name for the merged article)? Deleting both articles (star and planet)? Something else?PopePompus (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @PopePompus: How about merging the planet and the star into an article titled Qatar-3 system? BD2412 T 14:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established by the existence of secondary and tertiary sources as described at WP:GNG. This policy is not easy to apply to astronomical objects and there is a specific policy giving guidelines about how to assess notability for them. I have argued that the policy is difficult to apply to exoplanets and it has certainly been widely ignore, but the basics are still there: being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. The policy specifically describes that notability is not inherited, that is something is not notable purely because of association with something else which is notable. Hence a star is not necessarily notable because it has a notable planet. Looking again at the policy, notability is not established by the properties of the planet or star and especially not just by its existence, but by the attention paid to it in reliable sources. Again, this works better for people, fiction, etc. than to massive balls of rock or plasma in space, but it is how Wikipedia works. If an exoplanet, for example, has particularly unusual properties of some sort then it will generally have some coverage in at least multiple peer-reviewed journals, and hopefully some more general media also. All this doesn't necessarily resolve this discussion, but it does answer the question you asked. Lithopsian (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per PopePompus. Riteboke (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Qatar-3b has been added to facilitate the close with XFDcloser. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:05, 14 April 2021 (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.