Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-155c

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. In the absence of sources, I don't find the keep comments persuasive. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-155c

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kepler-155c (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, no significant coverage outside of comprehensive databases like the such as the Open Exoplanet Catalogue. One of many non-notable exoplanet articles created by Jtadesse (talk · contribs). Article deprodded by creator without improvement, who did not understand why comprhensive databases do not count toward notability per WP:ROUTINE. The host star Kepler 155 is also nominated at AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable exoplanet, just an item in the catalogue. Tercer (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In few similar cases, i observe how effort by new, less experienced editors to create pages related to planets in habitable zone, are thwarted by established Wikipedia community. I.m.h.o., this is a bad practice (deletionism) which will negatively affect Wikipedia quality and coverage in far future.Trurle (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Trurle.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Tercer. As I said at a related AfD, it's a bit wild that we live in such times that we can say "eh, it's just another exoplanet", but ... eh, it's just another exoplanet. Catalogue/database entries don't amount to notability in the Wikipedian sense of the term. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable enough since it "it's just another exoplanet" as User:XOR'easter noted. The premise of Tercer is correct, but that is not a sufficient reason to keep the article. I applaud his willingness to welcome people. The counter argument would be that if WP lower its inclusion criteria, that would ultimately damage the quality of WP and thus drive less ppl to enjoy it or even edit it. Cinadon36 06:39, 21 May 2021 (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.