Talk:GJ 3470

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --2A00:23C4:BC0C:6A00:A05F:C22B:9D9B:A5B1 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gliese 3470 has one confirmed planet, Gliese 3470 b, and that planet already has its own Wikipedia page, since November 2015. It would be highly unorthodox, and very frustrating for readers, for Wikipedia to have an article about the planet but not a complimentary one about its parent star. Also, if confirmed, Gliese 3470 c would become the very first exoplanet solely discovered by amateur astronomers. This candidate planet orbits inside the habitable zone, receiving about the same amount of light as the Earth does. Its discovery makes the star, and its properties, even more interesting and therefore paritcularly notable.
 * I declined the speedy deletion request, as WP:A7 does not apply to astronomical objects. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

KPS-1b wasn't fully discovered by amateurs
KPS-1b was discovered with data gathered by amateurs, but the project is run by Ural State Technical University.

Unlikely this project, the candidate GJ 3470 c has been discovered through the Habitable Exoplanet Hunting Project, a program fully managed by amateur astronomers. Plus, all the data reported in the GJ 3470 c candidate paper was gathered by amateur astronomers.

For all these reasons, I suggest this edition:

KPS-1b has been the first exoplanet discovered with data gathered by amateur astronomers through a project led by a University, whereas GJ 3470 c, if confirmed, it would be the first exoplanet fully discovered by amateur astronomers

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * GJ 3470.png

The claims of additional planets are not credible
For one, Wikipedia doesn't consider arXiv to inherently be a reliable source (WP:ARXIV), which was the reason given for the removal of the new planet claim by an IP editor before it was added back by another IP editor.

Even if you consider the new paper on its own, actually reading it beyond a glance at the abstract should make it clear it's not credible and wouldn't pass peer review. The reference section alone cites this Wikipedia article(!!!), links to "arxive.org" for the earlier paper, and the citation to Kipping et al. 2022 has an incomplete link and misspells the lead author's name.

In any case, data from TESS contradicts the existence of these planets. In some edit summaries elsewhere I linked to a Twitter post saying that a refutation had been submitted to arXiv, but this still hasn't appeared. For now I've removed the additional planets from the planetbox, but kept the text (with some small tweaks), which can hopefully be added to in the future once a refutation appears. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Stopped clock is right twice a day?
This paper with the results of a search for trojan planets finds a candidate at GJ 3470, unrelated to the previous amateur claims. The authors are credible and it's accepted for publication in Astronomy & Astrophysics. I think this is worth adding to the article, but should be treated with caution and not hyped up too much - it's not a confirmed detection! Interestingly, it seems that if this trojan planet exists it likely doesn't transit. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)