Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

List of potentially habitable exoplanets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a WP:POVFORK of List of exoplanets. It is based on an index which is was invented to scale to Earth-like characteristics. It says absolutely nothing about habitability and, to the extent that it does, it is based on unpublished claims. jps (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

NOTE Please see the related deletion discussions on WP:CRUFT related to ESI: Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons and Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination). jps (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Understand that the paper Schulze-Makuch et al. 2011 has Méndez as a second author (I have access to the paper). It seems to be basically the only paper that describes ESI beyond passing mention. As for media related interactions:, , ,. Here is a debunking done by another astronomer: and one done by Seth Shostak:  Good find on the MNRAS paper. I'm going to go digest it and come back later with comments on that. jps (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable subject even if (and I say if) currently not-so-well-sourced. The bulk of the list (i.e. at least which exoplanets are considered potentially habitable) is taken from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog (check it on archive.org if presently down), maintained by an educational institution, which even a cursory Google search will show is considered something non-dismissable by various sources. The list itself had been yanked from the article shortly before its nomination for deletion; I have restored it and I hope it is allowed to stay there for the duration of this discussion, which will otherwise be pretty moot if the list is not there to delete. LjL (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The list is problematically referring to an unpublished original invention by the person who is maintaining that site, which is 100% WP:SELFPUB and therefore not a reliable source. We can easily incorporate the features which may indicate rockiness or existence of the planet in the habitable zone at List of exoplanets. This list is a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. jps (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "The site" is actually a university's official website, so we really cannot say that whoever is maintaining those specific pages within the site is "self-publishing". LjL (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we can. It is owned by Méndez. That's who updates the website and he has full editorial control. jps (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You sound quite familiar with this Méndez by the way you describe this. Hopefully you don't have a personal vendetta or other problem them because that would likely not make you very neutral about this whole set of articles you're trimming or trying to get deleted. LjL (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The guy is pretty visible in popularizing his ESI. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. Only we can't take it as being more relevant than a popularization. Right now, it's being used incorrectly at Wikipedia to imply something like a consistent measurement, which it is not. It is merely the opinion on how "Earth-like" something is, and there are lots of ways to characterize that other than ESI. jps (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How do we know this that Méndez is popularizing the ESI through the media? I mean do you have anything to cite this with? I'm actually quite intrigued about this now. But as I said below you are making it sound like we are doing a Conflict of intrest with this guy which (at least for me) is not the case. QuentinQuade (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest It looks like the internet has never met Abel Méndez from PHL actually! A basic search shows the PHL/HEC website and some other booring profiles, However the 3rd result shows his twitter which quite frankly if it's real or not I cannot decide. But all in all I fall to see his names appear in a basic google search where I would expect click-bate exoplanetology related articles would appear, or even some scientific papers. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also I want to point out about the whole ESI Score controversy thing is that if we go to and search for "Earth Similarity Index" a whole slew of peer reviewed papers will appear. Take this paper for example,  A) Has no mention of Mendéz in it, B) It Mentions the Earth Simularity Index in the abstract, C) The use of the ESI is cited to Schulze-Makuch et al. 2011 which is a USD$55 Paper that you have to buy unfortunately, D) Even "Habitable Exoplanet Catalog" is mentioned as well. And the paper has been Accepted & Received Davidbuddy9  Talk  04:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Two is not a "whole slew", and it's three if we count one that doesn't appear to be peer reviewed. Alsee (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking deeper in that google search if you click news the only mention of Mendez is in the article "Signs of Change in Cuba, by Rob Stuart" which leads my to wonder how was the concution made that Mendez was popularizing the ESI in the Media? QuentinQuade (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ironically you brought up the idea that Méndez was popularizing the ESI Score through the media, previously it was just stated that he was popularizing it, not necessarily through 3rd party sources. You came up with it and I just went around looking for answers. The answer, the only way he can be popularizing the ESI Score is through his Website or Twitter. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now fully digested. The paper indicates that ESI cannot be a stand-in for potential habitability. It is actually an argument in favor of WP:TNTing this page. jps (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But I never said that the ESI was a measurement of habitability. The ESI is a measurement of how similar an object is physically to the Earth, ie. Mass, Radius, Density, Location, Temperature etc. The closest index that I have seen for assessing habitability would be the Life Likability Index (LLI) which seems to be used exclusively only in Universe Sandbox². Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You may never have said that, but the list we are discussing uses it as a stand-in. The fact that this approach is criticized means at the very least we shouldn't be using it as it is in this article, and if the list is kept I expect that we will remove the list of ESIs. Is that fair? jps (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable and adequately sourced. Note the deletion nomination of the companion article as well: Articles for deletion/List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (2nd nomination) James J. Lambden (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has unsourced material but that's why I'm working on a new Table found here to address this. Not worthy of a deletion. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Davidbuddy9  is the creator of this dubious article ( oops, not the creator ), and is the blocked sockmaster of QuentinQuade. All of the multiple-votes by this user should likely be discounted as made in bad faith. Alsee (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * has significantly contributed to the article and is currently temp-banned for sockpuppetry. His sock's vote has been identified and discounted. Discounting 's vote would be double jeopardy.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your improvements will be welcome, but for my information, what is actually unsourced (regardless of supposed unreliability) about the current table? LjL (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've complained on WP:AST about lack of citations, I cannot verify the SPH, HZD or HZA values and I cannot find answers anywhere! This is extremely frustrating especially when new exoplanets pop up and I add them in I don't know where to get those values so I was told to make a new table and to separate the exoplanets in the Conservative HZ and the Optimistic HZ which is the new table format approach that PHL/HEC is taking and I think should be adopted here too. Davidbuddy9 Talk  18:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason that we lack citations is because these aren't things that any serious scientist takes as more than games. Wikipedia is being used right now to legitimize this, and that's not right. Your complaint is justified and the ESI and all the other arbitrary schemes need to be removed if this list is to be retained. jps (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, you make it sound like there is an inside job going around on Wikiproject Astronomy and that everyone is secretly working with this "Méndez" to secretly implanet the ESI into as many articles as possible. We use it here for a reason, not nessearly to jusify habitabilty but simply as a comparison of simularity between the Earth and these respective objects. QuentinQuade (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all. But it is undeniable that this particular score is being used uncritically in part because of Wikipedia's ill-advised decision to use it. jps (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Highly notable topic regardless if the main source is WP:SELFPUB or not. QuentinQuade (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and/or Rename Per Earth Similarity Index's refs #2 & #3, ESI is not WP:OR, since it is used by 3rd party publications (assuming no COI). However, any ESI's on the List of potentially habitable exoplanets that are calculated by editors, not published in a reliable source, should either be removed or identified as such to the reader.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Given comments above, this seems like a WP:COI issue and not a WP:OR issue and should be addressed to the editor(s) in question. A 3th party using ESI is entirely in the realm of what's allowed on WP, assuming the source of the information is accurately characterized and referenced.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any claim being made that the article's contents have been written by someone who is also the creator of the sources, which would be a COI (but would also in fact constitute WP:OR). I think the claim is just that the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog is a self-published work (even though it's on the site of an academic institution and seems to be highly cited to me, so I don't agree) and not peer-reviewed enough. Even if this were true, of course, it wouldn't automatically make the article's subject unencyclopedic. LjL (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The ESI is a wholly different matter. If this page is based on the ESI it is problematic because ESI says basically nothing about habitability. The location in the habitable zone and the rockiness of the planet are the relevant things to consider according to experts. ESI is just one person's index about something similar to Earth. jps (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable topic, per above Codrin.B (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I MIGHT reconsider. I am opening a new section below. DELETE burn it with fire. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to mirror & promote the evolving fringe methodology of a single primary source. For starters if we kept it we'd have to move it to a valid title, which would be something more like University of Puerto Rico's Planetary Habitability Laboratory's ranking of exoplanets potentially habitable for earth-like life. And that pretty well indicates why this article is a disaster. The contents of the page are almost entirely arbitrary and speculative, and the page tries to justify it by defining the contents to be a mirror for the arbitrary, speculative, and evolving methodology of the single arbitrary primary source. We sure as hell shouldn't be rewriting the entire page as the single primary source evolves their latest methodology, and we sure as hell shouldn't have twenty pages just like this one if twenty different universities come up with twenty different arbitrary methodologies. If and when there is some stable and commonly accepted standard then we could consider that.
 * Secondly, this is a very short sighted page. A few years ago new planet discoveries were individually covered as newsworthy by many secondary sources, warranting full articles as permanently notable. Advancing technology is increasing the rate of exoplanet discovery exponentially. Currently we're at a brief point where a "list of" non-notable exoplanets has the appearance of being reasonable. However we cannot have indiscriminate lists of thousands or millions of non-notable exoplanets, which is where this is quickly headed. Wikipedia is not a catalog for basic statistics on an infinite number of non-notable astronomical bodies. Alsee (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as certainly still questionable overall, certainly not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  04:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, if and only if multiple independent sources addressing habitability are provided. bd2412  T 18:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think that WP should identify an object as 'potentially habitable' in the absence of in-depth observational evidence published in refereed, mainstream journals. For example, I would have no problem with an article which describes Europa and Enceladus as potentially habitable because there are refereed, in-depth papers which argue that these worlds are capable of sustaining life. But we should be more cautious with sources which conclude that a planet could potentially be habitable given some assumptions, especially if those sources are not refereed. Whereas the scrutiny of the peer-review process forces scientists to be conservative when making new claims, a non-refereed source has much more intellectual freedom to ask "What if?" as a means of starting a discussion. This is how I view the (unrefereed) UPR website, and based on the available sources, I believe that this article is premature. Moreover, Alsee is right that this list will quickly become obsolete and unreasonably long. What seals the deal for me is the fact that this article (by its own admission) is simply reproducing information from the UPR's website. I don't see any need to duplicate this content. Astro4686 (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as seemingly based on arbitary speculation, not endorsed by any scientific agreement nor any peer-reviewed research. I agree that this is effectively self-published since no university exercises editorial control over what any academic may 'publish' in their own field, even more so for a website, which does not have peer review. Title itself is misleading and this AfD is more informative than the article about the real likelihood of 'habitability. Article is WP:OR if jps is correct above 'If this page is based on the ESI it is problematic because ESI says basically nothing about habitability'. I leave it to others with more expertise to see if there is anything rescu-able here. Pincrete (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment A lot of the debate here seems to be focused on the belief that self-published are not acceptable. This is not completely true. Quoting WP:RS, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * DrChrissy, I was aware of that when I left my post and meant to cover it. Self-published work, which has not been peer-reviewed and which represents a claim very distant from scientific consensus, can, at best, be phrased as person X claims, not using wiki-voice. Given present levels of understanding, an extremely high level of expertise would be required to substantiate predictions about habitability levels of these bodies. I don't think this person has that level of expertise, nor the 'publishing history' on this topic, even if they did, their claims would be better presented within the context of other claims and present knowledge level than 'floating in space'. At present the title and content are misleading I seriously wondered whether the AfD date, 1st April 2016 might have some connection to the article and little context is given. I made a point of saying that there MAY be savable material here, but I lack the expertise to know what it is. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pincrete, my comment was not directed specifically at you, but also at others who have made blanket statements which I am not convinced are supported by WP:RS. You make very good points in your reply, and it is points like these we need to take into consideration when considering whether the source is RS within the context it is being used.  Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. DrChrissy (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, but rename to List of exoplanets based on ESI. After looking deeply into this, I was unable to find any source which considers ESI an accepted rank of habitability, however it is a rank of something, I'm not sure what. Valoem   talk   contrib  23:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename, verify, and improve. Something like List of exoplanets by ESI would work, and it needs better sourcing.  The problems with this seem to be a) ESI is being used as a measure of alleged habitability, which is potentially fringe (it doesn't seem to be an approach with a lot of support in RS); and b) some of the figures in the table were arrived at by Wikipedians, which may be OR.  The ways to resolve this would seem to be a) Don't promote it as a list of potentially habitable exoplanets, but a list of planets sorted by what we're sorting them by, and then include a paragraph on who sources A, B, and C think this relates to habitability, and sources X, Y, and Z do not; b) check the figures and the sources; doing basic math is not actually original research. Manipulating data to get an answer you like is; c) add more sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think List of potentially Earth-like exoplanets might be cleaner. There seems to be a consensus that these sources are for Earth similarities not necessarily habitability. Valoem   talk   contrib  15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Anything like List of exoplanets based on ESI badly fails WP:LISTN. ESI has negligible use or acceptance beyond the originator. It is extremely dubious to be presenting a list with this sort value at all, much less defining it as a notable listing in itself. Alsee (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I came here fully expecting to vote a strong keep, then the powerful arguments by Alsee and Pincrete made me do a 180. The topic is interesting but this article really boils down to a mirror of one website. Renaming doesn't help that. Ifnord (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to List of potentially Earth-like exoplanets. MartinZ02 (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand The topic is important as it is currently a major motivator in formal science objectives statements (within the USA and Australia at least) so it would be ridiculous to not include a page for the attempts at formalisation of habitability. Two things need to be added: a critical discussion of the various indexes listed, and a discussion (or further links to discussions) on the definition of habitability.  I'd recommend looking at publications under or including US NASA researchers at the VPL such as V. Meadows.  I'd also suggest to this community in general that when looking for publications in astronomy that NASA ADS website be used along with Google Scholar. Most of the previous statements about Dr. Mendez read like a personal attack rather than an attack on the validity of the index (other indexes are included here...) so I am suspicious of the motivation.  Mendez' index and all other habitability indexes ARE topics of discussion within the exoplanet community and all are subject to very critical review.  They are just as worthy of discussion on a wikipedia page as the similarly useless Drake Equation and there is no reason to omit a wiki page that attempts to apply them. 67.183.72.156 (talk) 06:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to List of potentially Earth-like exoplanets. Some scientists would argue every exoplanet is "potentially habitable", just not necessarily by Earth-like life. To get into a wild discussion about where life can or can't exist is pure speculation and does not belong in this article. That being said, it is a notable topic, and if reliably sourced, belongs on Wikipedia. Smartyllama (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * MartinZ02, Smartyllama what would the inclusion criteria be for List of potentially Earth-like exoplanets? The current list is based on fictional temperature values of one person making up random albedo values and imaginary atmospheres, and for most planets uses fictional mass or radius values made up by that same person, and he then combines those made-up values into an complicated "earth-like formula" which has little usage beyond himself. That's the problem here - we have absolutely no viable list definition other than the current effort to make a list reflecting the wildly speculative work of one person. Alsee (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. it's not reliably sourced. It isn't peer reviewed, and while it is on a university domain name it appears that it's all self-published with no oversight. The list is basically a mirror webhost for basically one scientist's blog. Alsee (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Revised article
Pinging the delete votes to discuss: User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc User:SwisterTwister User:Astro4686 User:BD2412 User:Pincrete User:Ifnord, as well as article creator Davidbuddy9.

The article has been impressively improved. Almost all of the novel and speculative values are gone. It is still defined as single-sourced effectively to a single scientist, but we could change that definition to the Official NASA Exoplanet website. That is a far more authoritative source, and it would have a side-effect of cleaning up the remaining novel/speculative values. We could define it as confirmed planets only. The list is using "Habitable zone", which is indeed a scientifically accepted term for a planet with an orbital distance where water may be liquid. It is also effectively using a concrete min/max mass threshold. I'm not sure if we have good sourcing to justify that mass range. Hopefully Davidbuddy9 can comment on that. It looks like most of the problems have been fixed, or could be fixed through editing. I have one major reservation left. To quote the article, there are about 40 billion planets in the galaxy that could eventually end up on this list. The rate of new discoveries is growing exponentially. Is it really a good idea to keep a list that we know will soon expand out of control? And are there any other major concerns? Alsee (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am a generalist, without the competence to judge the science. This area of science is inherently speculative, however the lack of context in the orig. (of HOW speculative, of to what degree endorsed, of preciseness with regard to 'habitability/specific defined similarities and whether these meant anything) + the reliance on single sources + poss. OR were what concerned me. A quick look at the article suggests context has been added. Reluctant to commit myself beyond endorsing that this is now much better, though renaming is still necessary. Pincrete (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is currently not 40 billions planets on this list and there are larger lists on WP (like here) however you target the lists that are somewhat notable? WP:SIZE is not a problem there why would it be a problem here? Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment and for the last time please stop framing me as the article creater you make it seem like such a negative term. Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alsee, we have agreed in the past, but I think you are wrong here. Your argument is "delete" because the future is coming? Valoem   talk   contrib  22:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Valoem if you look up the page I changed "delete" to "I might reconsider" because of the improvements. And the issue I am citing is that this list violates the list guidelines: To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS example, List of exoplanets is already 2-3 times the split size and it's only going to keep growing at an accelerating pace. We can't have a list with 5k entries, 25k entries, 100k entries, or millions of entries. One badly planned list is not reason for a second. Can anyone propose any reasonable list definition that is compliant with list guidelines? Something limits the size of the list to manageable proportions?
 * And the other issue I asked about: We have a commonly accepted definition for habitable zone orbits, do we have any commonly accepted inclusion criteria for mass and/or radius? Alsee (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "We have a commonly accepted definition for habitable zone orbits," Well actually the HZ varies depending on the author of the paper. I know this because it something complained about a lot between authors (in blogs and in papers), some are very conservative (like for example http://www.drewexmachina.com/) and others (like the Kepler team) seem to be more "optimistic". Although PHL (our favourite :) tried to turn these into two unified definitions, the measurements that are used between different people are inconsistant (EX, compare the Sseff of Wolf 1061 c here to here. EX 2 compare this back to that last PHL link.) Although these are needle in the haysack cases, commonly accepted definition for habitable zone orbits is only something we can dream about. Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was perhaps optimistic assuming the well-accepted "habitable zone" concept had a reasonably accepted definition. I was impressed by your recent revisions and I was trying to find a way to solve this. We're left with a misleadingly titled "habitability" list with absolutely no commonly-accepted accepted criteria for inclusion. "List of planets that one person thinks might be habitable" is not a viable list. Alsee (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Another note WP:TOOBIG recommends that article splitting should be considered at around ~50 kb, this article is only ~19 kb really no where near the WP:TOOBIG issue call me back when its ~45 kb please. Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:16, 19 April 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.