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 no consensus. I recommend that alternatives to deletion such as merging (or, if not, renaming to a Not Painfully Capitalized Title) are explored further before renominating.  Sandstein  11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Potentially Habitable Exoplanets Kepler Candidates (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)

List inclusion criteria fails standards of Wikipedia. List of Kepler exoplanet candidates is fine. Speculating on habitability is pure original research. jps (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Please see the related deletion discussions on WP:CRUFT related to ESI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable moons. jps (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


You're absolutely right that there is some data which may speak to habitability, but it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable. The question is whether a list like this is the best way to present the information instead of in a location such as List of exoplanets. To quote an exoplanet astronomer with whom I was discussing this list, "So a list of planets in the habitable zone that are likely to be rocky, with comments that these are the most probable candidates to be Earth-like --> fine. A quantitative ranking of those worlds with comments that the ones at the top could host complex life --> many bulls have defecated better science." jps (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...it seems irresponsible to focus on a measure that is ill-defined and not quantifiable.
I would say "ill defined and only very loosely quantifiable" because there are some numbers that can be used, but in essence, I agree. And having done a bit of digging since my first comment, I'm inclined now to go ahead and vote that we Delete this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of potentially habitable exoplanets or Delete both articles. Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Davidbuddy9 is blocked for confirmed multi-voting with sock account QuentinQuade. I suggest all votes by this user be discounted as bad faith abuse. Alsee (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at that source... How is it self-published? Because the site is owned by the UPR? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is the personal webpage of Abel Méndez. It's similar to any other personal webpage hosted at a university. It's because there is no editorial control of the website (no curation except for that done by Méndez). The site is fine to illustrate Méndez opinions on habitability/his ESI ideas, but it is not vetted data any more than any other webpage that is not subject to curation or review. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It's a subdomain of the UPR; a funded department of the university, which Mendez is in charge of. I've never heard of a university giving a subdomain name to a single professor (no matter how well-known or respected) for personal use. Even if they did, I can't imagine they wouldn't shut it down the moment they found out it was presented as anything but a personal home page. In addition, there's no disclaimer of any sort I've been able to find, meaning that the university tacitly endorses everything on the page. I'm sorry, I was voting with you based on prior knowledge and some info I gleaned from the article itself, but the sources provided here are actually changing my mind. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Subdomains are given out all the time at universities, and not just to professors. I own one myself that I control completely. jps (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of such a thing, and it strikes me as a source of potential liability. Could you find some examples? I'm honestly curious. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least in France is almost standard practice to let permanent staff have a subpage. It is often just a list of publications and a CV, and university policy may restrict the content. But for instance this research lab lets their staff redirect internal URLs to personal pages (example: http://www-ext.impmc.upmc.fr/~caste/ ). Tigraan (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you send me an e-mail I can send you one in private. jps (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's an email link on my talk page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
E-mail sent. jps (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed sockpuppet of Davidbuddy9. Mike V • Talk 18:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No COI issue. The first citation is WP:SELFPUB. The second one is in a more obscure journal and only qualifies as a primary source there are no secondary sources connecting to it. jps (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: I wouldn't see a WP:COI with another editor as most of these pages opened for AfD have been created by me, but it appears to be some grudge against the use ESI particularly citing PHL/HEC. Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Grudge" is the wrong word. "Concern over proliferation" might be better. Especially considering the debunking that has been done of the index by professional astrophysicists. Wikipedia should not be relying uncritically on a single self-published website to establish a list. jps (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peer-reviewed, mainstream-journal usage of ESI now referenced at Earth Similarity Index.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, what is not referenced is a connection between the ESI and the potential habitability of exoplanet Kepler candidates. In fact, the paper actually comes to the opposite conclusion (that the ESI does not do a good job identifying habitable candidates). jps (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The basis for this AfD is that the pages in question use a metric which is WP:OR, which has been proven false.
Regarding potential habitability, this is how science is done—a hypothesis is proposed, predictions made, and results tested. The astronomical community believes some form of an ESI is needed and producible. The form it should take is a work-in-progress and in a state of flux on a scientific timescale, much like many nascent science articles on WP. The next step is to amend the hypothesis or produce and test an entirely new one, which should all be reflected in a good encyclopedia article. At that time it may then be appropriate to make large-scale changes to these pages. Until that time, the reader is best served with the most current information and a description of its validity, not by removing/censoring it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The astronomical community believes some form of an ESI is needed and producible" --> No, this is incorrect. The astronomical community has basically ignored this idea. 11 citation in 5 years is a miserable citation rate. ESI has notability because of popularization, not because of its use in science. Since the only proposed table uses a WP:SELFPUBlished website as its one and only source for the values, it is still very much WP:NOR. To argue otherwise is to run afoul of WP:V/WP:RS policies and guidelines. jps (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Planet-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where did this conversation happen if I may ask? Since you exchanged emails I'm concerned that there could be a possible COI? Davidbuddy9 Talk  02:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It started above, but the only part of it which happened off this page took place here. There was a single email which consisted of a link to a university subdomain which JPS claimed to have been the former controller of. I verified that it was once under the control of an individual with the same real name and background as JPS on my own, and then asked him a number of questions, which he answered quite clearly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually quite confused on this quote: "Remove table, put info into the voice of Prof. Mendez (as opposed to wikivoice) and merge into Planetary habitability" but there is no real substance to this article removing the table. If we logically look at this we have a generic short paragraph that reminds the reader that this is a list of unconfirmed exoplanets and then there is the table. Removing the table and putting it in someone's voice makes me wonder what the article would be, even if it is merged to Planetary habitability it would be quite redundant. This is why this is a "List of" not a full-blown article about Potentially Habitable KOI's. Therefore, what would be put in Prof. Mendez's voice? A generic paragraph reminding the user about unconfirmed KOI's? Or we put the list in "the voice of Prof. Méndez"? Davidbuddy9 Talk  03:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote is based on fallacious reasoning and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards of conduct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stated "Source presented clearly show this is notable". Is that not a reason? Valoem talk contrib 16:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nom didn't request deletion on notability grounds. Even if he had, what you said was still a personal attack and a fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the nominator's bases for nomination is WP:OR, we disprove OR with reliable secondary sources, same as we do with notability issues. Notable speculation on potentially habitable planets is allowed and passes GNG established by Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 17:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of that source has been challenged. Also, you still haven't struck or even acknowledged your personal attack. I would advise you to do so. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my statements. I believe this editor has merit in discovering non-notable subjects, but should do so in a more neutral manner. This particular article is notable, but sometimes nominates article which are clearly notable. Valoem talk contrib 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose you've thrown two arrows in JPS' quiver, the next time the two of you butt heads, but that is your choice. Let's hope for you sake the disagreement doesn't end up at AN/I. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer neutral nominations which allow editors to judge the merits of the article and sources for themselves. I especially dislike removal of sources during AfDs, not that this has happened with this discussion. Valoem talk contrib 22:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (Presumably accidental five ~ signature fixed by Alsee (talk))[reply]
@Alsee: Strongly disagree with the language used here, Unconfirmed ≠ Hypothetical. These listings were not invented by PHL/HEC at all! In fact if we used the NASA Exoplanet Archive we can clearly see where all of this information is coming from as well as highly documented pdfs (ex [2] [3]) produced by NASA from the Kepler data. To say that this information from Kepler is Hypothetical is simply misleading, and I would strongly advise you to change your language as this is not a list of Hypothetical exoplanets. Davidbuddy9 Talk  23:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable point.  Done Alsee (talk) 23:50, 6 April 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.
More