Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates

:{{la|List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_nearest_terrestrial_exoplanet_candidates Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|List of nearest terrestrial exoplanet candidates}})

I don't see any reason to keep this list as separate from list of exoplanets and list of potentially habitable exoplanets. This would be a list of potentially rocky exoplanets, but determining whether a planet is actually rocky or not is extremely difficult and essentially none of the planets listed here has been confirmed as such. It seems reasonable therefore to just keep the list at one of the main lists on Wikipedia rather than having a third such list. jps (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• ^{Changed vote as per Tom.Reding}Redirect to List of exoplanets (think it would be better than deletion for the reader). I agree nothing too notable with just being rocky, although some exoplanets in general have been proven to be rocky (like K2-3d for example). Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The article has undergone extensive truncation immediately prior to nomination. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nearest_terrestrial_exoplanet_candidates&oldid=716258701 Here] is the last version prior to the mass removal of information, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nearest_terrestrial_exoplanet_candidates&type=revision&diff=716258701&oldid=716256639 at least some of which] was removed erroneously.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• None of the information was removed erroneously. The columns that were removed were removed for reasons clearly delineated on the talkpage. Additionally, unconfirmed planets were removed. jps (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
• What's the big problem with including unconfirmed exoplanets? Some of the images that you have removed passed WP:AIAO and therefore I do not understand why some (not all) were removed. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete mere speculation. Hekerui (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|Hekerui}} the entire article or just the speculative entries? Some exoplanets (with mass and radius values already known) are indeed rocky. PS Wouldn't a redirect be better off than a full blown deletion (to preserve years of edit history)? Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment/RfC I think one of the underlying issues, of this and several other pages under regular AfD recently, is whether or not use of unique data contained at [http://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog/data Planetary Habitability Laboratory] adheres to or violates WP:PRIMARY. There is a discussion about this at WT:AST#Is Citing PHL/HEC in violation of WP:SELFPUB?, but it isn't receiving much participation, at least not enough to establish consensus. It would be prudent to suspend this and all related AfDs until that issue is resolved.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• The SELFPUB RfC was closed as not SELFPUB, but did not address the WP:Primary issue (that strayed away from the original scope of the RfC, so the RfC was not beholden to that issue's conclusion). There is, however, a concurrent, related RfC still open addressing general encyclopedicness of ESI @ WT:AST#Is the use of the ESI Score Unencyclopedic?.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 
• Redirect to List of exoplanets candidates as I would've also suggested Draft but this may be enough since this would still need better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. I don't see how a redirect would add anything? DeVerm (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

::A redirect would preserve years of edit history. Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per original AfD, interesting, and well-referenced. This list is separate from the others nom mentions because it is limited to 50 lightyears, as opposed to the others which have no limit. This list title is also well-constrained and is mutually exclusive from List of exoplanets, which contains confirmed exoplanets. I see no reason to #R or delete, but if the closing decision is to do either, prefer #R to save 5 years of edit history.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, I have to agree with Tom.Reding on this one, the article has improved since nomination and it is well cited. Also note that the PHL/HEC RfC closed saying that PHL/HEC is not a violation of WP:SELFPUB which allows more citations to be added. As for {{tq|"determining whether a planet is actually rocky or not is extremely difficult and essentially none of the planets listed here has been confirmed as such."}} is simply false, all that is needed is a Mass and radius value, or if only a radius value is provided if its under <1.6 R_⊕ it is likely rocky.{{cite web |url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4457 |title=Most 1.6 Earth-Radius Planets are not Rocky |work=Leslie A. Rogers |date=3 Mar 2015 |access-date=2016-05-12}} Davidbuddy9 Talk  05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

• Keep – Many of the entries in this article are not listed in the list of exoplanets or list of potentially habitable exoplanets pages. The nominator bases deletion in part upon the notion "to just keep the list at one of the main lists on Wikipedia rather than having a third such list", but if this is deleted, then those entries may not ever be added, or may not be added in a timely manner. No prejudice against a later merge if consensus suggests doing to. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found by Tom.Reding shows this clearly passes GNG, many planets listed here are uncontroversial. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

::{{U|Valoem}}, I think you mean Davidbuddy9 instead?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.