Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler 155


 * 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. The "keep" opinions don't make any policy-based arguments.  Sandstein  12:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Kepler 155

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NASTRO. Can't find any published papers with in-depth coverage of this or a small number of other objects. Even the discovery paper is one of many. No popular coverage outside of the large exoplanet databases. Not notable for itself, and I'm thinking the exoplanet not notable either. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Article deprodded by creator without improvement, who did not understand why comprhensive databases such as the Open Exoplanet Catalogue do not count toward notability per WP:ROUTINE. I'll bring Kepler-155c to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply having an exoplanet is not enough for notability. The exoplanet itself is not notable either. Tercer (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 02:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind, keep. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 19:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep In few similar cases, i observe how effort by new, less experienced editors to create pages related to planets in habitable zone, are thwarted by established Wikipedia community. I.m.h.o., this is a bad practice (deletionism) which will negatively affect Wikipedia quality and coverage in far future.Trurle (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination,, and . I suppose it's not an actively harmful page to have around, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate pile of factoids. Our astronomy coverage is hardly served by disconnected trivia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you should make it connected and not-trivial. I agree the article is sub-standard, but deletion should be last means after attempts to improve fails. By the way, the article has been significantly improved now.Trurle (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, originally I accepted this from AfC because I thought it had WP:NASTRO passing coverage rather than just database listings, but on further inspection it seems I was mistaken. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 12 May 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.