Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Centauri Bc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. To merge at this time, that is. Clearly nobody considers deletion.  Sandstein  17:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Centauri Bc

[edit]
Alpha Centauri Bc (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)

The original researchers are not confident about their discovery, and this source indicates that there have been no follow-up surveys to corroborate. Until Bc is confirmed, it should stay as a sub-section of the Alpha Centauri page. Primefac (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • So by that logic, Alpha Centauri Bb should also be deleted, due to lack of certainty. It was only five months ago, no one has had a chance to do a follow-up survey. It's certainly notable for being one of the two closest exoplanets along with its fellow planet. DN-boards1 (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bb has been confirmed, as far as I am aware, though you are free to nominate it for deletion. If no one has had a chance to do a follow-up survey then it is TOOSOON for an article on Bc. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so we would convert this to a redirect to the section? (Merge and redirect) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There's nothing that can be said about this planet except a couple of sentences and a data table. That can certainly go in a subsection rather than requiring a separate article. If/when more information becomes available then a split can be considered. Note that this reasoning does not apply to Bb, which has had an awful lot written about it. Modest Genius talk 13:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a planet. Planets should be considered notable enough for their own articles, even if the information about them is scarce and this one probably is mostly harmless. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NASTRO would beg to differ with that assessment, never mind the fact that it doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant quotation from NASTRO is 'The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability'. Modest Genius talk 10:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am usually a fan of separate pages for interesting exoplanets but there is so little about this potential candidate that I do not see the point of having it forked. As a proof, the current article contains absolutely no specific details about this potential candidate. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nergaal has summarized this well so I'll just point upward. The article is a textbook merge case, and it's not even fully confirmed. KieranTribe 11:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a planet it should have a separate page. What would this be merged into anyways? The already crowded Alpha Centauri page? It needs references though. We can't even tell if this was even detected or if this is just a troll. If there are no references or evidence that someone even detected this than it should be deleted. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Davidbuddy9, you seem to have contradicted yourself, but to answer your questions: yes, this would be "merged" into Alpha Centauri, but seeing as all of the relevant information (including the two references I listed in my original post) is already there it's really nothing more than turning it into a redirect. At the moment there is one team of researchers who think they might have possibly found something, but have not conclusively determined it (and there have been no followup surveys of the star). Primefac (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Its is clear that there is no information about the planet. However I don't want it to turn out the same as how Gliese 581 g and d were merged into Gliese 581. That was a disaster because all the parameters and info about the object's were lost. However since this object has no parameters it as much of isn't a concern. I do not like to support the idea of merging planets into its star(s) page because of that incident. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. That seems like a completely reasonable concern. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Until Bc is confirmed, it should stay as a sub-section of the Alpha Centauri page." That quote is an invalid point, just because its unconfirmed doesn't mean it should be deleted. Should we put all the pages for KOI's up for AfD if this is the reason? QuentinQuade (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is suggesting that the information should be deleted, just merged into another article. Comparing to KOIs isn't really relevant, because we're considering one single instance rather than a list of many hundreds. Modest Genius talk 10:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Instead of deleting the article more information should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.21.115 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there ISN'T more information available. That is the whole point of this AfD. Nergaal (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Alpha Centauri B per WP:MERGEREASON #3. Praemonitus (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to note, Drew ex Machina has some info about this object that I have applied to the page. This contradicts the statement(s) that there is no information about the exoplanet. -Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful here. All of the available information is being drawn from a single source: Demory et al (2015). There is no other information available since nobody else has confirmed it. Even the original authors saw only one transit-like event. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is clear that there are reliable sources with information about this exoplanet. I would not suggest merging as all this information about this planet will be lost as pointed out by Davidbuddy9. We've seen all the disaster mergers regarding the Gliese 667 C and Gliese 581 systems, just a brief mention everything else was lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.36.31 (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A poorly implemented merge is not a reason to avoid any further mergers; it's a reason to correct that merge. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alpha_Centauri_Bc&oldid=1074871766"