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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-closed as No Consensus, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 13 -- RoySmith (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI (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:LISTN. Since the last time this was listed, every entry has been deleted from Wikipedia per WP:NASTRO. Therefore, the list has no inherited notability. There are zero independent sources which identify these Kepler candidates as being notable as a group or as a list. Only a single website. jps (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using this index, they found that Earth's H′ is only .82, meaning that from the vantage point of another galaxy, Earth would only appear to be 82% likely to be habitable. This is interesting in itself, but more significantly, there are many exoplanets already discovered that have similar habitability indexes, including Kepler 442-b (.84) and KOI 6108.01 (.87), and are worth a closer look for alien life. Funnily enough, there are several planets that have significantly higher habitability rankings than Earth, including KOI 5737.01 (.92), KOI 7235.01 (.93), and KOI 3456.02 (.96).
Website #2
One of the unconfirmed planets could end up a real doozy. Located somewhere between 200 to 1,000 light years away, the Sun-like star KOI-7235.01 may have a planet even more similar to Earth in orbital distance and size, at only 20 percent larger than our planet. If confirmed, it would be even more Earth-like than Kepler 452b.
Thanks for the notice. I have removed the protection since it appears (from discussion elsewhere) that the issue of removing the AfD tag has been resolved. Users are now free to edit and improve the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A third idea that I came up with is possible adding another column and listing the "HITE"[1] index for these objects as well. It appears to be an alternative to the ESI. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true! We shouldn't have AfD's regarding ESI topics until we can get some sort of consensus about it first. Davidbuddy9 Talk  21:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be more productive than a new AFD less than two weeks after a no consensus close on the previous one (the second such no consensus AFD on this list under whatever title). postdlf (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We already have List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft. The only way this list could hypothetically be kept is by renaming it to something like List of unconfirmed exoplanets discovered using the Kepler spacecraft, dumping the fictional mass values, dumping the arbitrary and fictional ESI-values, and expanding the list to include all 3699[2] unconfirmed Kepler candidates rather than this arbitrary and non-notable subset. It would be a poor idea to make that list of 3699 entries because unconfirmed entries have very low encyclopedic value, because 3699 entries will be way over recommended page size, because it's merely mirror catalog of basic physical statistics, and because every entry will be removed from the list "soonish" as they are either established not to exist at all, or are confirmed and moved to the other list. It's like a slower version of a "List of potential 0-0 Soccer matches" - listing games that are in-progress. Alsee (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the nominator added Important note 3 to WP:NASTRO (talk page discussion).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"a good guide...to which exoplanets are really potentially habitable" this is like an article list of drinkable beverages by radioactivity. Radiation content doesn't really say much about drinkability, just as ESI doesn't say much about habitability. But in a way, it's worse, because apparently the ESI uses fictitious values for things like the mass, meaning that an already useless index (at least, for this purpose) is also rendered not even very accurate. Sławomir
Biały 17:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think ESI does not measure habitability in anyway and mostly likely will not be the used measurement in the future, but that does not mean it is not notable. Things can be notably incorrect and I hope you understand that. Valoem talk contrib 20:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the keep rationale wasn't that. It was keep on basically the exact reason that these articles are so problematic: they have become de facto proxies for "habitability". An index being "notably wrong" seems like a poor reason to have a list article organizing the topic, and I would need a good deal of convincing otherwise if it were suggested that this was the norm (under whatever alphabet policy soup fits the bill). Obviously, conventional articles about topics are a different matter, where it's clearer how to write material in a more manifestly NPOV-compliant manner. Sławomir
Biały 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically its not notable for being wrong yet, but it is notable based on the these sources Website #1 and Website #2 the sources do list ESI ranked planets. ESI measures Io higher on habitability than all other moons in the solar system which contradicts all other measurements, so I think it is wrong, but I also think it is notable because notability and factuality are not related. Valoem talk contrib 22:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather hard to construct a list in an NPOV-compliant fashion, though. How do you WP:DUEly weight a column in some damned table?! Notability of a concept (and even somehow organizing that content into a fully-formed list) is a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for inclusion as a list. Sławomir
Biały 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we just write that this is not an accepted measure of habitability and cite oher measurements which contradict? Valoem talk contrib 22:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IINFO. jps (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On what policy basis do you want Wikipedia to host a list of ESI values? jps (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BatteryIncluded: But the article is List of Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI not List of habitable Kepler exoplanet candidates by ESI. So I don't understand your point? Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been cleaning your mess in that article regarding habitability. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just remember that this article used to be called List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates. Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If habitability is not the motivation for the list, then what is the motivation? jps (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I didn't rename the article you should ask the people who renamed the article from the last AfD. It appears just to listify Kepler Candidates by ESI that are within PHL's equilibrium temperature range. That takes us back to the discussion we had on my talk page. Davidbuddy9 Talk  20:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're voting to keep. If you cannot justify the raison d'etre of the list, you shouldn't have argued for it to be kept. jps (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep because you were arguing that the list is not notable. The entries were kept from the after the renaming of the article which now appears that you are exploiting this to completely delete and hide the edit history of articles mentioning or using the ESI completely. I understand that you may not feel that the use of the ESI is not acceptable but trying to cover up edit histories of articles that used it by deleting them doesn't sound right to me. However, yes I do feel that this list is notable, but I think it needs restructuring like what happened at List of potentially habitable exoplanets rather than a complete deletion. Really this AfD should really be an RfC instead discussing how to improve this article. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an explanation. The list is by design a list of ESIs and nothing more by your own admission. You !vote to "keep" is based on some silly vendetta and not on policy which is what this discussion is supposed to hinge upon. jps (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In your nomination you were questioning the articles notability and that appears to be why you nominated it for deletion. In my !vote I was pointing out sources that disprove that and I was arguing that it does meet the criteria of being notable and therefore it should be kept. This is not about vendettas jps I don't even know how you made that connection here. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:59, 8 May 2016 (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.
Category