Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-730

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. Sandstein 05:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-730

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

This is an article about an exoplanetary system candidate, essentially an unconfirmed data point. Previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI 701.03, demonstrated candidate objects are not considered notable and contradict WP:CRYSTAL ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per last time for KOI 701.03 -- WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all astronomical findings are essentially unconfirmed, until such time as they can be directly observed. Viz the extraordinarily long discussion about Gliese 581g's existence or Nemesis (star). (nb as I've edited the article several times I may not be impartial here) Kernalk (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kernalk's statement of astronomical findings are essentially uncomfirmed. Ajl^talk 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this statement (from the source) still violate WP:CRYSTAL? "[T]he remarkably commensurate period ratios of these four candidates give us strong confidence that they all will eventually be confirmed as planets." (emphasis added) Ajl^talk 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, it is not confirmed yet (otherwise it would be named "Kepler-xxx", like other Kepler confirmed finds). Right now, it is nothing more than what should be a footnote in the Trojan planet article. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is decided this article be deleted, please instead move it to either my userspace or to Kernalk's (if he wishes)? Ajl^talk 00:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no problem with that though I'm rather new at this editing lark... Kernalk (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst I entirely agree that, "the overall topic is undoubtedly notable, the specific objects which may or may not be planets or even exist at all are not "automatically notable,"" (Beeblebrox 05:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)) surely the trojan orbit(s) and the unique orbital resonance alone make this topic notable enough to keep; however a list of Kepler candidate findings could be a better place to keep this information. The information in the article is noteworthy, and the sources referenced in the article indicate that those in the know (Ames, et al.) think that this information is plausible enough to publish. Kernalk (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A list of Kepler candidates might indeed be a viable alternative. Comments on this idea should probably be directed to the article's talk page, though (to avoid cluttering up this PROD). Ajl^talk 09:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until confirmed by radial velocity measurements. Please see my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI 701.03, which also applies here. Modest Genius ^talk 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kernalk.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." This system is subject to scrutiny in the research paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0543, as well as coverage on several media sites Nstock (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per article references. Also, KOI 701.03 vote count was 3 keep, 3 delete, 1 keep or merge, 2 delete or merge, and 1 merge- not really a deletion consensus. Fotaun (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of a deletion discussion is not solely based on vote counting (at least, it shouldn't be). Icalanise (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be disagreement over WP:Crystal. Fotaun (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regardless of whether the planets are confirmed or not, the star designated KOI-730 does exist. Nevertheless the article as it stands does not go into any details of the stellar properties, and at the moment there has not been much followup of this system so these properties have substantial uncertainties. Icalanise (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2011 (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.