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. A redirect can be created separately. Sandstein 10:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K2-157b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NASTRO. Article is tagged as possibly failing WP:GNG but has not been improved. References to this planet are only found in a single paper detailing a large list of new exoplanets found in the K2 survey. It is also included in the standard exoplanet databases. I found no other references, technical or popular. Lithopsian (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I understand the premise for the AFD and was on the verge of expressing an opinion to delete. However, in researching the article I came across a List of exoplanets, List of exoplanets discovered between 2000–2009, List of exoplanets discovered in 2010, List of exoplanets discovered in 2011 and so on and so on. In reviewing the “Lists” I noticed that a majority of the Exoplanets listed have a blue link to a small article giving a brief informative description of the subject, how it was discovered, and other facts associated with the subject. I appreciate that a vast majority of these individual articles will never progress pass this level in the near future, due to technology limitations, however, that does not mean the article will stay in its current state perpetually. As our technology advances in viewing space so will our knowledge with regards to individual exoplanets and at that time the articles can be expanded. In the meantime I see nothing wrong with having a short informative piece about an individual extrasolar planet. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At the moment, the sole reference is essentially an entry in a list. Which is where this belongs. We don't need a separate article for every exoplanet discovered, only for the ones which feature something extraordinary that has resulted in significant coverage. Until more information becomes available about this exoplanet, or something about it is found to be extraordinary, it belongs as an entry in a list and no more. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be somewhat more explicit. Is there anything in the article that is not present on the single line in this list? If not, why have an article?Tarl N. (discuss) 16:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep meets WP:RS and WP:V without problems. I agree that notability is borderline, but this is not a topic that falls into WP:NOT or with significant bias or factual issues. I'd rather keep this based on good faith on the authors' parts. At a more subjective level, I found the article mildly interesting and would assume others would as well. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think the refs support notability, there are two which look like scientific papers from which the data in this article is deduced. Szzuk (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: I don't see much in this article that can't be covered by a list such as List of exoplanets (full). Praemonitus (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment that when I looked for what might reference this page (assuming it was only referenced by the lists it would be redirected to), I got an absurdly long list of articles which didn't obviously relate to that exoplanet. It's been added to ((2018 in space)), so we get all sorts of unrelated articles pointing to this. If we do redirect it, we should remove it from that template. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I see the argument that there are many exoplanets on wikipedia, (and lists of them) the ones I looked at still had good enough RS to substantiate an article. Clearly if there are bajillions of exoplanets, and many not of note, then we don't need pages for all of them.... they can sit on a list page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Understand the rational, and you are right, there are an infinite amount of exoplanets and as such, we here at Wikipedia, could have an infinite amount of articles addressing each. However, at this time, what we have is a list of specific exoplanets, that this particular one is listed in and which has been confirmed and verified by both secondary and third party reliable sources, and as such becomes notable. And again address the area that there is information about this “rock” . A blue link to the limited amount of information we have on the subject is well within our guidelines and as such believe should be kept. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Deathlibrarian. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.