Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-351b


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Kepler-351b

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no citations, no publications specifically about the planet, and this article really isn't that significant. SpaceDude777 (talk) March 19, 2017, 7:20 UTC

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - This discussion was not created with the proper template. I remain neutral on the nomination itself at this time. -- Finngall   talk  19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found no significant coverage (the only portion of WP:NASTRO that appears likely to apply to exoplanets) of this planet in either technical or lay publications, but I'll reserve judgement in case someone comes up with something. For now, it is worth noting that the article says something about the star Kepler-351 and virtually nothing about the planet Kepler-351b. Lithopsian (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I stubified the article, because it is, in fact, a stub. maybe some citation and additional facts can save the article from deletion and move onto the nice article list. '''P roDuct 0339'''sayworkproj 08:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete In essentially all the Kepler-nnnx planets, no further information is or will be available for a decade. Their orbital radius and period, diameter and mass in the infobox are all the information we're going to get for the immediate future. Assuming it doesn't already exist, an article with a table containing that limited set of information for all the Kepler-discovered planets might be worthwhile. But separate articles makes no sense unless for some reason extra information is available. This doesn't seem to be one of those cases. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 02:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That list would be List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. See Articles for deletion/Kepler-377c for a similar discussion resulting in a redirect to that list. Lithopsian (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I notice that some of the planet articles on that list actually re-direct to system articles (e.g., Kepler-33). Those articles actually can make sense, more information about the host star can become available, more planets can be discovered, and there may be discussion about interaction between the planets in the system where an article makes sense. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (or turn into a redirect as discussed). I still see no notability and no reason to have the article. Lithopsian (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2017 (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.