Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-1638


 * 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. The main point of contention between the keep and merge/redirect !votes isn't about sourcing or content but about how articles about exoplanets and the star systems they're found in should be organized. That discussion should be done at a more appropriate forum to allow for broader input than an AfD for a singular article, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kepler-1638

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. No popular coverage, no in-depth scientific publications, just one star/exoplanet in various lists of a thousand plus objects. Lithopsian (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks for your comment. The list of potentially habitable exoplanets is actually very low (60 at the moment). I created the article because the vast majority of these exoplanets have also Wikipedia articles about their stars. IMO this particular one falls within the criteria nº 3 (The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, including newspaper articles). The study of the star is actually what led to find the exoplanet. I honestly think both go together: the star system itself. In addition, it is the farthest star with a known potentially habitable exoplanet ExoEditor 18:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * True. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since there was already an article on Kepler-1638b, creating an article on its host star makes sense. IMO articles on exoplanet host stars should take priority over articles on individual exoplanets, since any exoplanet is a subtopic of its planetary system; an article on a star shouldn't be deleted or merged if (an) article(s) on its planet(s) are kept. For one thing, having an article on the host star means that if any additional planets are discovered in the system, they can all be described in a single article. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect both Kepler-1638 and Kepler-1638b to List of potentially habitable exoplanets. The nominator seems to be correct that this system doesn't meet WP:NASTRO - there's no coverage of it individually, just as one of a large number of Kepler systems. Since the main source of interest in Kepler-1638b is that it's listed as a potentially habitable planet, both articles should be redirected to that list. There also isn't much to say about the system beyond basic data that can fit in a list entry. I'd also be fine with keeping, or merging the planet article into the star article (but not the reverse). SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits to the above comment (now two comments); hopefully this clarifies things. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep The object is at least a bit notable for having a potentially habitable exoplanet. And Kepler-1638b is pretty notable so I would not merge it into the list of potentially habitable exoplanets. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 19:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Kepler-1638b. The star is only notable because of the exoplanet, and there isn't even anything to write about it other than the basic parameters. The exoplanet is notable, Ref. 5 does talk about it individually. Tercer (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that counts as significant coverage per WP:NASTRO, but in that case the planet article should be merged into the star article per my comment above. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, as the exoplanet happens to be notable enough. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 01:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Kepler-1229b, I agree with you. ExoEditor 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above by Kepler-1229b and Exoeditor. WolreChris (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge Kepler-1638b into Kepler-1638.  There are going to be a *lot* of exoplanets found in the coming years, and I think a policy should be made about how to handle them.   IMHO it makes the most sense to have the star and all of its planets covered in a single article, and name the page after the star, except in the spectacularly rare instances (just our Solar System?) where enough is known about one of the planets that covering that planet along with the rest of its system-mates would make the article too long.PopePompus (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As said above, the exoplanet is notable enough. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 04:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that the exoplanet is not notable. I just think from an organizational point of view it would make sense to put all of the information about each "exo-Solar System" into a single article, unless that would make the article too long. Both the star page and the planet page are only one paragraph long.  Why not put everything known about that system into a single article, named after the star? There could be redirects for notable planets.PopePompus (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that makes perfect sense; List of potentially habitable exoplanets has plenty of examples, such as Kepler-26 and Kepler-26b, or even silly stuff like Gliese 1061, Gliese 1061 c, and Gliese 1061 d. I don't think here is the proper place to discuss this, though. Perhaps you should suggest this mass-merge at WT:ASTRO? Tercer (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, your examples show exactly what I was trying to suggest.  Would Wikipedia really be better if Kepler-26 and Kepler-26b were separate articles, with Kepler-26 repeating some of the information available on the Kepler-26b page, in order to establish notability? I don't think so. If nothing else, minimizing the amount of duplicated information appearing in separate articles makes maintaining the articles easier.PopePompus (talk) 17:57, 28 January 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.