Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-1002


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Kepler-1002

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NASTRO, WP:NASTCRIT, and WP:GNG. No popular coverage, no published papers about this object other than as a member of large lists, not naked-eye object. Basically just another anonymous database entry. Lithopsian (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 02:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Found nothing except mentions in long lists and the Wikipedia article about its planet Kepler-1002b. Didn't find anything, that would make either one notable according to WP:NASTCRIT though. AntiCedros (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree, this is nothing but values pulled from a list, does not meet WP:NASTRO (not inherently notable). Maybe we should start pushing for a general policy that objects should not have their own article if the only data is the kind that is available for all other objects of the type and could be contained as a few items in a list for all objects? Tarl N. ( discuss ) 00:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with above. Nothing found in Google Scholar. Just a data card. Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 24 April 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.