Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 38801 b


 * 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  19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

HD 38801 b

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It exists, next please. Nothing notable that I can see. Habitable zone? Something, but not so very rare. No popular coverage outside of the standard databases. The only specific technical publication is the discovery paper, although a handful of other journals mention it as one of many objects in lists. Therefore, fails WP:NASTCRIT. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: A Response To Lithopsian and a general message for other users who come to this discussion: "It exists, next please"? No need to take an antagonistic approach to begin your input. "Habitable zone?", I can understand you questioning this, but at the same time, it is never once claimed in the article that the planet being located within the habitable zone of it's system makes it more noteworthy. As for everything else you said, I respond to that as follows... If HD 38801 b doesn't meet the requirements for existing as a stand alone article than how come this,  this, this,  this and all the other short, small articles about astronomical objects that one could pick at random do? Failing to meet WP:NASTCRIT in one way or another isn't exclusive to the article in question. And of course if they don't meet the criteria then why not nominate them for deletion as well. If it is not clear what I am trying to illustrate, it's this, HD 38801 b is an article in an uncountable sea of short 1 to 2 paragraph articles about obscure astronomical objects that one would most likely only come across via a list, and that don't meet WP:NASTCRIT. By saying that HD 38801 b should be deleted, you in a way create a divergence of conclusions / consensuses that one should come to: This first of which being that if this article for the reasons you stated is problematic then delete it, along with all others like it (as i pointed out) and rid the site of hundreds of articles that were fine prior to the existence of the one I have recently introduced ; Or Keep the article and the others like it, and change the guideline (If of course there isn't a WP:MASSCREATION decision that supersedes WP:NASTCRIT about certain objects like these anyway, but I'm not sure). I know that This is a difficult decision to come to a conclusion for, but understand that more is being discussed here, that more is at stake, and that WP guidelines can be changed and are/should be set only in accordance with the community's wishes (WP:PG), which in this case don't seem to conflict with what I'm advocating for / proposing. WP:NASTCRIT seems to have been ignored by everyone who has made or contributed to an article on an obscure astronomical object, and yet the website has fared well, so changing it shouldn't do any harm. This is all just my opinion though and I would greatly appreciate it if as many users as possible gave their input in this discussion.Grapefruit17 (talk) 22:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this personally. It is well-documented but often forgotten that WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article.  WP:WAX explains that the existence of other non-notable (in a particular editor's opinion) articles does not justify keeping this non-notable article.  WP:NASTCRIT (and the whole of WP:NASTRO) has been extensively discussed and occasionally revised; it gives specific criteria for which of the billions of documented astronomical objects are considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so explaining why this article meets those criteria is a good way to have it kept but complaining about the policy or its application to other articles isn't.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would argue, now having looked at WP:NASTCRIT again, and doing more research, that HD 38801 b meets criteria 3: "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have significant commentary on the object." http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/exoplanetscontinuouslywithinthehabitablezone. http://exoplorer.org/en/exoplanets/hd-38801-b. The 1st of these 2 new sources seemed like it might have allowed this object to meet criteria 3. There's also the information that Graeme Bartlett mentioned which I think may have been overlooked. Basically, I think there is evidence for this object being notable. Grapefruit17 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The sources I'm seeing are basically just indiscriminate catalogues rather than anything that would provide WP:GNG. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking for references I find https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.08329.pdf (published ) which has several paragraphs on this planet and its star. The original discovery paper is here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/715/1/550/meta or https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.1779 and this has substantial content. So the topic will meet WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Was not aware this source was out there, this refutes the claim that this topic doesn't meet WP:NASTCRIT by the way. Thank you.Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The discovery paper doesn't really count for notability since it's not independent coverage. The secondary mention in the first review is pretty minor though HD 38801 b’s low eccentricity, the authors note, is of special interest since it cannot be explained by tidal interaction with its host star since the latter’s radius of 2.5 R⊙ is too small to effectively circularize the planet’s intermediate orbit. I'm not sure if that really fulfills GNG or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say that there's no question weather this meets WP:GNG, I think it does due to the fact that it is mentioned so much and there seems to be significant coverage on it, the greater controversy lies where we argue whether HD 38801 b meets WP:NASTCRIT which is like a more specific WP:GNG, but for astronomical objects. (I would also argue that it meets WP:NASTCRIT)Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything presented here that would satisfy NASTCRIT nor that it is mentioned a lot since pretty much everything is WP:INDISCRIMINATE mention if anything. The strongest thing is very brief mention in a secondary source, but I'd say that's really satisfying WP:DUE for inclusion in a different article rather than satisfying any kind of notability unless that piece of information is expanded by another source in terms of importance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would argue that is does meet WP:NASTCRIT (specifically criterion 3) per my last response to Lithopsian. I argue for this because the 1st source i provide (http://phl.upr.edu/library/notes/exoplanetscontinuouslywithinthehabitablezone.) is an article that mentions a number of exoplanets within the habitable zone (Including HD 38801 b). This source may not seem like a whole lot, but it does however establish that HD 38801 b would then be apart of a small, exclusive group of exoplanets that appear to, and do in fact merit notability and extra attention both outside and inside of Wikipedia. We even have a list of potentially habitable exoplanets (that does need expansion) that this and other planets could be added to.Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, this are yet again WP:DUE arguments, but not making a case for notability. For NASTCRIT, we do not have the in-depth coverage needed by multiple independent sources. Pretty much the only thing we have is the review very briefly mentioning eccentricity. That alone isn't enough for notability. Had the review gone in to more depth beyond passing mention maybe, but it's not very convincing when that is the sole strong source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but per SpinningSpark this planet's low eccentricity values provide notability. (He also gave a new source to my knowledge)Grapefruit17 (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the same source Graeme Bartlett brought up in this thread that we've been discussing already (i.e., zero eccentricity), so it's not new. It's also pretty weak in terms of WP:SCIRS too. A single primary research article carries different weight depending on topic, but it's generally pretty low-tier compared to reviews, books, etc. That's not enough to establish notability, and we haven't really been left with anything else that begins to approach notability in this AfD to-date. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg  jhp  jm  01:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to this paper, "HD 38801 b ... features peculiar zero values of eccentricity and periastron longitude ... such a low value of eccentricity at such intermediate distances from the host star ... cannot yet be explained by tidal circularization and therefore represents an interesting conundrum."  This planet is thus more interesting than merely "it exists".  The source explicitly says it is interesting. SpinningSpark 11:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, it has been covered in enough sources to satisfy GNG. Leo1pard (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.