Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-1686.01


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

KOI-1686.01

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was a notable candidate exoplanet with some media coverage for being similar to Earth. On further observation, however, it was found that the exoplanet does not exist. It was a statistical error. As such, I posit that it is no longer notable. I understand that this contradicts WP:NTEMP, but I argue that the guideline should be ignored in this case per WP:COMMONSENSE. A2soup (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete entries in databases is not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, for so many reasons. First, absolutely no significant coverage in actual scientific studies or the press, with only 7 refs throughout history . Second, currently the existence of an article actively misinforms readers that the false positive is in any way notable and may exist, when it clearly does not have a planet and has no noteworthy properties. Also, the article itself at the moment is, frankly, a piece of garbage, with the only text demonstrating any noteworthiness being sourced to Wikipedia. Get rid of this before it misinforms more readers. Same goes to all similar articles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kepler object of interest. Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment/Oppose? Everybody has their own vision of common sense, so basing your opinion just on it is ineffective. Opinions should be then based on the established guidelines. The mentioned “notability is not temporary” principle is a very strong counterargument. If needed, we can merge the article into a dedicated “false positive” list or just improved, depending on the situation. — NickTheRed37 (0x54 &middot; 0x43) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument about common sense, but in this case, in which the article is literally a statistical error in the data gathered from a single scientific experiment, I felt justified arguing from common sense. Re WP:NTEMP, this article was supposedly notable (and I realize now, likely not actually notable per WP:NASTRO) only on false premises, namely that it was Earth-like and that it existed. Re merge to list, I concede that it is possible that a List of former exoplanet candidates identified as false positives might meet WP:GNG, since the possibility and presence of false positives in such data is widely discussed. A2soup (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a cost-benefit to having such a list; it would probably be of little interest and still need plenty of upkeep. My only reason for suggesting a redirect was for search purposes, in case somebody came looking on Wikipedia based on outdated information. Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per StringTheory11. There might be merits to a List of former exoplanet candidates identified as false positives, but I really don't see the point. There will be hundreds of those over the years, if not thousands. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:44, 15 July 2015 (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.