Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-1606b


 * 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 and redirect to List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope. Policy based rationales point to deleting, however, redirecting to List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope makes sense as a search term. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-1606b

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NASTRO. The only references to this object in scientific papers are are as part of very long lists of exoplanet discoveries. I couldn't find any popular coverage although it is found in several online exoplanet databases. At the deletion discussion for the parent star, it has been suggested that it should be deleted or redirected. Lithopsian (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I searched for it, and besides the discovery paper, where it is just mentioned in a big list, it is mentioned in these two papers , again just as an item in a big list. Tercer (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Believe me, like geographical locations, astronomical objects don't need to be much notable. 95.162.206.118 (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Agreed, astronomical objects don't need to be notable, just a location and as more information develops it can be updated. Additionally, it takes time for science to catch up and go through the list of all the systems and planets they are finding to fully research and determine exactly what they have found. They do not have large teams doing this kind of research and most of the teams are often student or volunteer contribution at that compared to other kinds of research where lots of money and personal are being poured into it. FalconGrey (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment These keep !votes illustrate well why I think new users shouldn't be allowed in AfD. Both users have a single edit in Wikipedia, and it's a !vote that completely ignores Wikipedia policy. Astronomical objects, like everything else, do need to be notable to have a Wikipedia article. See WP:NASTRO for specific guidelines. Frankly, how did you even find this deletion discussion? Tercer (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: While I feel and understand your frustration, there is no reason to attack the individuals posting the vote to add to discussion. That in and of itself does nothing for the discussion and changes it away from the point of the discussion. I have already, before making my vote, read the requirements, and still made my vote and will explain. TOO many today do not know anywhere else to go for this information but here. It isn't taught anymore where or how to look for it. If anything, site them over to a site such as kepler-1606-b at NASA where they can get more or proper information beyond the resources of the Wikipedia entry. Personally, I made my entry as plain as I did to try to 'open' civil discussion as I saw none. I see too many coming to Wikipedia looking for information then not knowing where to go there after. Most do not know how to use Google or any other search engine properly so need assistance finding the proper locations. A small link to assist won't hurt, only help Wikipedia's reputation of where to look for knowledge. FalconGrey (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nor, frankly, is it our responsibility to hold the hand of everyone who lacks the media literacy skills to do a tiny bit of library research. Extrasolar planets don't get articles just for being discovered. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: No, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And I do respect that fact as well as agree with it. That was why I was suggesting at the least, point the individual to where they CAN correctly find the information and explain why it's not here. This would save data space on the servers (which is the real reason behind this need of this criteria) and help those who have not been taught to properly use tools such as Google or have access to libraries (no need to be condescending to those less educated and or misfortunate). Additionally, there are those who live in areas where access to search engines are restricted and this gives them the ability to still access the information easier. As for responsibility, it can be argued that by choosing to vote, edit, or create entries you are making an active choice to hold the hand of anyone who comes to Wikipedia in search of knowledge by becoming a gatekeeper to the knowledge they are seeking. Even if done just once. Many of which of this younger generation, never being taught properly how to use other tools or to look elsewhere. Many of the elder generation, they are also stuck in this same situation simply because of disconnect by technological advancement. Having a single line explanation why there is NO information on the site about Kepler-1606b here but a link to where they can find the information, now that would make Wikipedia become even more of a source of knowledge and a useful tool. It wouldn't be for ALL things, no. This isn't Google. But, instead of holding a hand it would point those seeking the knowledge in the right direction and hold a place for future expansion when science catches up with itself. (My final argument on my thoughts in this discussion.) FalconGrey (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - It fails WP:NASTRO. Non-notable exoplanet. --SimoneD89 (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope. Not notable enough. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 18:27, 29 April 2021 (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.