Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NASTRO. Unsalvageable mess. A list of unconfirmed objects ordered by an arbitrary scheme that has no independent verification. jps (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dismiss, nom is WP:FORUMSHOPPING by submitting 3 AfDs for this article in less than 2 months.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this relevant close (I didn't see it yesterday).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the RfC, I think we can still have 1 list with ESI on it. This list probably makes the most sense to keep, out of all the ones with an ESI column, since ESI is in the title. This would preserve the 'general rule' of the RfC and be the only 'case-by-case' exclusion, also permissible per the RfC. That would still require consensus, though. If not, defer to 's comment.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment these objects can be cited using NASA's Exoplanet archive. Simply remove the ESI column as per RfC and revert to original article name (using a format simular to List of potentially habitable exoplanets).  Davidbuddy9   Talk  00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Note also this DRV. Will comment on the merits later. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural Speedy Keep per WP:SK #2. This article has already been nominated for deletion three times previously within this calendar year without gaining consensus. Four AfD nominations in a six month period is vexatious. I am a big believer in the baseball rule, i.e. 3 strikes. The pro-deletion advocates have taken three mighty swings at the ball and missed each time. That's enough. If you can't persuade the community to delete an article after three attempts then it's time to accept that we are not of one mind on the subject and move on. I have no comment on the merits of the article per WP:CIR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list still fails WP:V.  Most of the references are to a source that does not even mention ESI.  There are a couple of footnotes to the self-published Méndez site, which is at best a primary source.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This argument is irrelevant. The ESI column can simply be removed, no need for article deletion and additonal citations can be added from additonal sources (like the NASA Exoplanet Archive). Also note that that your argument regarding Méndez's site has been discredited by community consensus.  Davidbuddy9   Talk  20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The title of this article is List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI. If you're willing to retitle the article to one that does not involve the ESI, please do so.  I indicated that this source is at best  a primary source.  Since you only rebutted the first assertion, I assume that you agree that it is a primary source and should be removed.  Also, while we're on the topic of "community consensus", the clear outcome of this RfC would urge the removal of ESI from this article, because it is undue weight. If there is another article here that does not involve ESI, please remove the ESI column from the table and suggest a rename.  But, as a list of planets by ESI, this article should be deleted, unless it becomes something else.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The clear outcome of that RfC is the likely reason why this AfD has been opened up by Jps. As I have stated in previous AfDs we should go back to the original naming of the article which is less controversial and does not involve the ESI which only implies a list of potentially habitable Kepler Candidates. A rename is obvious for this scenario but just because "ESI" is mentioned in the title doesn't mean the appropriate action for an article is to delete it.  Davidbuddy9   Talk  21:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If we delete the ESI source, then the sources do not support "List of potentially habitable Kepler candidates" either, do they?  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But they do support "List of Kepler Candidates in the Habitable Zone" don't they?  Davidbuddy9   Talk  00:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That works. But it isn't what you proposed.  If you're serious about that title, you should propose the move.  I think there is a good chance of getting consensus and avoiding all of this AfD hell.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already went through with this (as per WP:BOLD), as (to my attention) the only reason why the article should be deleted is because the ESI is used in the article and is in the article title which (as I have demonstrated) can easily be fixed.  Davidbuddy9   Talk  01:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the article has been moved to List of Kepler candidates in the habitable zone, per my suggestion.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. In the list's present form, at least it complies with the consensus of the RfC.  The list appears to have been lifted almost entirely from the Menendez source.  I don't know if that is acceptable per Wikipedia rules, but at the very least the sources should be clearer.  Although overall I do see NPOV problems with relying on Menendez as a secondary source, I think it is probably reliable in this particular capacity, so I have struck my delete !vote.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do agree that sources should be made more clear. Using a new column for sources and using the NASA Exoplanet archive could be a start.  Davidbuddy9   Talk  21:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Ad Orientem and Tom.Reding. If the ESI is really such an issue than simply remove and rename as I have suggested in my comments above. As per notability and other issues and concerns see my points from prior AfDs.   Davidbuddy9   Talk  01:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked a bit into this mess.
 * I see no issue with the renomination of this article. All previous nominations were not "keep" but "no consensus" (one was delete but correctly overturned to NC), which is a significant difference, especially considering that a relevant RfC took place since then which supposedly clarified the issue (by the way, kudos to User:Pincrete who IMO made the best of a poorly worded RfC).
 * I have no objection to a second go at a no-consensus AfD. I do have an objection to four(4!) nominations in less than 6 months with essentially the same arguments being advanced. That's a pretty good definition of vexatious. While consensus is desirable it is not always possible. And it is worth remembering that no-consensus defaults to KEEP. I stand by my procedural KEEP vote. If you can't persuade the community to delete an article in three attempts then it is time to accept that we are not of one mind on the subject and drop the stick. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "By ESI" is an arbitrary criterion based on a non-RS (per the RfC) single source. One could argue though that the newspapers that picked on the ESI did discuss exoplanet candidates and as such that there are RS discussing the topic as a group, but I think that argument is weak since the sources did not evaluate the claims made by ESI. To take an over-the-top example, claims such as "Uri Geller was granted paranormal powers by aliens" were reported by the press so that they are included in the relevant article, but they were not validated (and are not exposed as the "truth" in WP voice). Hence, I think categorization "by ESI" should not be included, neither in the title nor in the content.
 * When the ESI is kicked out, the topic of the list is actually "Kepler exoplanet candidates", which is basically List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft for the unconfirmed. I assume that would make a very long list hence unsuitable; note also WP:NASTCRIT, "important note" #3.
 * So all in all, delete. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional note: I have no objection to a more restricted list of Kepler exoplanet candidates based on an objective criterion though. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well as I have pointed out in previous AfD's that a list of potentially habitable Kepler candidates does pass WP:NASTRO and WP:LISTN. However also note that the nominator added important note #3 to WP:NASTCRIT see changes.  Davidbuddy9   Talk  02:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Better than a lot of other list cruft we do keep, and this one actually has some scientific data, and hence encyclopedic value, in it. Aoziwe (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Keep and let's not revisit it for a few months. A editor wanting something deleted, and trying repeatedly, is not consensus building.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2016 (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.