Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unconfirmed 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   delete.  Sandstein  11:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

List of unconfirmed exoplanets

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

If an exoplanet is unconfirmed, there is no reason it should be given any prominence in Wikipedia. There is no need for a list of unconfirmed objects of a specific type, since many of these (if not most) will turn out to be false detections. While this list is clearly in good-faith, it simply gives undue prominence to something which is not even confirmed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – I agree. How can you state something that doesn't even exist? Also, Kepler has detected >3,000 exoplanets with the existence chance 50% or less. SkyFlubbler (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 01:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree a list is a bit pointless as it is a bit dynamic and just shows the amount of human knowlege at any point in time. However an article on unconfirmed exoplanets may be useful, and can explain why they are unconfirmed. Perhaps a list of notable unconfirmed or disconfirmed planets could go here - if there are any.  I can think of the ones around Barnard's Star as an example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 14:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (with maintenance) - Although I see how such an article appears a bit redundant and contradictory to Wikipedia's goals, some of these planets are probably well-known in the scientific community and are notable. I like some of the ideas proposed in the comment above, and perhaps the list could be shortened and uncluttered a little bit. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 18:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Article-ify. Nom expresses my exact thoughts on this as a list, but Graeme's suggestion that it would be well suited as a true article that explains the why and how seems like a very good idea. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As of today, exoplanets.org lists just over 3300 unconfirmed exoplanets, mainly because of the huge amount of data from the Kepler telescope. It's possible that most will not turn out to be planets. The reason they are unconfirmed is fairly mundane: follow-up observations are needed, either with another method (radial velocity) or to get additional orbits to confirm the Kepler transits. I'm not convinced a separate article is needed to explain this...why not just a section in the exoplanet article or methods of detection article? As for a list, I'm not convinced at all. Are there "notable unconfirmed" exoplanets? Please provide enough to make a list... Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Barnard's Star has a section on the false planets (as are a couple of the other Star-related articles I glanced at), and the rest of that list will either be rejected as non-stars or written up as proper articles. Not sure if it would be worth adding anything to the (already substantial) methods of detecting exoplanets article. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I am not, technically, the creator of this list, as all I did was break it off from a wider article ages ago, so I don't really have any territorial attachment to it. I have hoped for some time that it might be expanded by the Wikipedia exoplanet team, but it hasn't happened. I'm not convinced, however, that simple deletion is the wisest course of action. There are a number of notable stars (such as Barnard's Star, Tau Ceti and Betelgeuse) that have been or are suspected of having planets, many of which were notable "false starts" in exoplanet research. It might be a good idea to list those.  Serendi pod ous  16:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep on this one for reasons outlined by Serendipodous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete - "notable false starts in exoplanet research" is a section of an article that I would probably read. The rest of the unconfirmed? I know I've been writing "needlessly duplicate" several times lately, and this list falls under that. Other websites, notably exoplanets.org, already provide this information with far more utility that this list will ever have. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think an article such as history of exoplanet discoveries (which I think would be a noteworthy topic) could easily have this information, if somebody wishes to create it. No need for this separate indiscriminate list. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment Just because these planets are unconfirmed exoplanets does not mean that they are inherently non-notable. The list could definitely be cut down to remove some of the more obscure suggestions on the list, and it may not satisfy notability because they are unconfirmed. BenLinus  1214 talk 22:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , Nobody is saying that unconfirmed exoplanets are inherently non-notable; for example, Alpha Centauri Bb is quite clearly notable. We're saying that a list is the wrong way to go about describing them, and gives them undue weight, thus violating policy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I see where you're coming from. It does make more sense, as you mentioned above, to possibly create an article on history of exoplanet discoveries, and I definitely think that there is some salvageable content on this page. (Note: I have changed my opinion for now).
 * Delete. I agree that some of those sites that were mentioned do a better job, adn all the lists have "this list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it" underneath them. However, there is definite potential for a page on notable unconfirmed or disproven exoplanets (as has been said before).Iwilsonp (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. As is, the list is terribly incomplete, and if completed, it would be obfuscated by the sheer quantity of information. Creating the page Unconfirmed exoplanets and describing common situations and notable examples may be a better course of action. Piboy51 (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2015 (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.