Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transiting exoplanets

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. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of transiting exoplanets

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

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

Was a useful list in the past, but it became outdated and is hardly updated. The number of transiting exoplanets has grown massively, so it is nearly impossible to maintain this list. Just to fill up the missing entries it would take a huge effort of many people and months, and given that only 200 people see this list every month this effort would not be rewarded. The Exoplanet Archive already do the job to catalog these planets, making this list useless. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Normally the incompleteness of a list isn't a reason to get rid of it. We have some absurdly long lists in astronomy, and they will never be fully complete. That being said, sites like the Exoplanet Archive are going to be better at processing and maintaining this information. Why do we need to reproduce them? Praemonitus (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by transit, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (copying my comment from the RV deletion discussion) from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per multiple points of WP:NOT.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Please base your arguments in policy and refer to sources. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NLIST. There are multiple books entirely about transiting exoplanets in google books. They are discussed as a group/set in the literature in an in-depth way. I'm not seeing a policy based rationale to delete this article which essentially boils down to the list is incomplete and difficult to maintain. Those are volunteer workforce problems and not problems inherent to the notability of the list itself. Additionally, the list seems to be limited to only those transiting exoplanets to which we have articles which is fine.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per cyclopia, there are criteria for Wikipedia lists, and as transiting exoplanets have been mentioned as a set group in literature, per 4meter4, that meets the criteria for an article in my eyes. Segmenting by year of discovery or even just only listing planets with their own article (which the current article already does, bar a few exceptions) would be fine. The viewcount per month is irrelevant. Procyon117 (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some updating to the current year, it should be fine. Procyon117 (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST and per Procyon117. This doesn't seem to remotely fail notability requirements, and the only issues with the list per the deletion argument seem to be upkeep related, which as 4meter4 pointed out, are issues with the nature of volunteer editors rather than the list itself. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:4meter4 and WP:NLIST. There may be editorial constraints that motivate a different scope for the list or a different organizational scheme, but deletion is unjustified. Suriname0 (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2024 (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.