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. Consensus seems to be that the uncertainties that exist about these plantets can be addressed in the article and are not a reason to delete it.  Sandstein  17:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of nearest terrestrial exoplanets[edit]

List of nearest terrestrial exoplanets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

For none of these exoplanets sufficient evidence exists that they are in fact terrestial. If one checks the individual sources, there are at most plausability evaluations from the calculated density. The list contains no confirmed cases and only speculation, which makes it misleading. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is normal for astronomical theories about objects to be built upon such tenuous evidence. Until we have better instruments or can visit these places, we must present what we have. Ensuring that the data is presented objectively rather than hyped is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of planetary systems. Article is speculative of whether/not these are terrestrial, and hence the name is somewhat misleading. In addition, this may also fail WP:LSC; FWIW, it could grow forever into a indiscriminate list of possibly terrestrial exoplanets. HurricaneFan25 — 23:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Of course information on exoplanets should be included, but listing them by their distance from us is a bit OR, and maybe even "how to guide" if the purpose is to plan future (or speculative) interstellar expansion. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Perfectly valid list using objective, measurable criteria. There seems to be some serious confusion as to what WP:NOR actually prohibits, which is not data attributable to a reliable, published source, but that articles not proffer "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Beyond that, it's positively baroque to claim that this might be an impermissible "how to guide" based on nothing beyond unfounded speculation as to the article creator's purpose. Ravenswing 11:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My speculation that the list is based on an interest in interstellar expansion is very well founded, on my years of observation of human nature. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Stipulating that is actually true, even were you a notable authority in the field, neither Wikipedia nor AfD can operate on speculation. Either you have proof of the creator's purpose or - as apparently in this case - you do not. Ravenswing 05:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)\[reply]

I agree that speculation should not be used in writing article, I do think it is okay in AfD discussions. I would also consider myself to be a bit dishonest if I were to say that humans are not interested in expanding to other planets.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hekerui: Two of the ten planets are terrestrial planets according to reliable sources (see ref.s in their corresponding articles). But since the majority of planets listed is not, and in fact there are only (to my knowledge) six exoplanets known to be terrestrial at whatever distance, the article should be renamed to "List of nearest super-Earths" (since that's what it de facto is currently), or it should be edited to contain all known terrestrial planets (i.e. remove all the unref'ed cases, and add the more distant terrestrials known (55Cnc e, Kepler-10b and -20e, f)) and be renamed "List of [all] terrestrial exoplanets". I'd prefer the second option, and would be happy to edit the article accordingly. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Give all the information on all known planets, but don't make their distance from us the primary factor. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That could very well be a very good (and separate) list. Presence of this list does not ban the creation of that. :) -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - agree with Warden. Confirmations are rare in this field; it is standard practice in astronomy to go by likelihood supported by measurements, and the sources provided in this article adhere to this practice. Owen× ☎ 02:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't. There is a difference between a planet possibly being terrestial and scientists being certain/having consensus that it is, which we call confirmation, and which is based on more than a bit of speculation. Hekerui (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is IMHO one of the worst atronomy articles on wikipedia. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Confirmation" is a scientific process, to be honest it does not mean all that much as far as we should be concerned. This is not a scientific journal, it is an encyclopedia. It is not like "unconfirmed" equals "lie" it just means the margin of error is higher than usual prompting a level of "uncertainty" among some parameters. Astronomy is all about such estimations. There is verifiable and reliable secondary sources that document these exoplanets' existence so what is the problem? It is only natural to present Exoplanets "near us" as these are going to get better obesrvation with technological improvements so we will always have more information about them when compared to more distant planets. Also nearby exoplanets are candidates of first inter-stellar visits. What counts as "near"? 10 light years? 50 light years? That is an editorial decision not involving AfD. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Rename and Reformat to List of terrestrial extrasolar planets A list of exoplanets is inherently notable. Having a list of exoplanets which are terrestrial is inherently notable (although you might have multiple lists within that article for terrestrial size-wise vs. terrestrial habitability-wise) However, it is not our place to decide that the distance is inherently notable. Having a sortable table allows our users to sort by any criteria they choose and I think steers well clear of WP:OR and WP:SYN which I feel the "nearest" part is skirting the edges of. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing "inherently notable" about a list of planets, but this list is cited with multiple in-depth sources and thereby satisfies WP:NASTRO. I can't say I care for the images as they are pure speculation. The problem with building a "List of terrestrial extrasolar planets" is that it would be essentially unconstrained: it may include billions of objects. This list at least has the decency to include a distance constraint. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any planet is backed by secondary sources establishing notability. Of COURSE they are notable for that reason alone. There however is far too many exoplants and we will not have detailed information about the more distant ones. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 22:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • You're making a broad claim based on the novelty of planetary discovery. When the count reaches 100,000 or 1,000,000 it will no longer be true. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It will still be notable as there will be secondary sources to comply with the notability policy. Each species of Bird (extinct or not), each species of dinosaur, each country has an article as they are inherently notable. Articles on exoplanets will probably read more like the article Pluto which has so far been only observed remotely through telescopes. More information will be available on exoplanets with new technologic developments as well. Article count is irrelevant to notability and I do not see why you brought it up. Why shouldn't Wikipedia document detailed information on every exoplanet, star, pulsar, black hole in the Milky Way as information becomes available? Is that not the purpose of an Encyclopedia? We even have articles like Sagittarius A* that covers objects we cannot even "see" so I do not see the problem here. That said, a graveyard of stub articles is something that should be avoided as if we do not have anything interesting to say about an exoplanet we can do without an article this however does not mean they shouldn't appear on lists. Nearest terrestrial exoplanets however is of great interest and is a field where great amount of information will be available compared to more distant ones. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:56, 30 December 2011 (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.