Talk:KOI-4878.01

This article was nominated for deletion on April 8, 2016. The result of the discussion was Delete.

==Proposed merger==

Closed as No consensus to merge. Editors have disagreed on the independent notability of the object, discussion appears to have ended. A loose necktie (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The previous article was nominated for deletion on April 8, 2016. The result of the discussion appears to be 'Delete'. The editor mentioned 'Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list', but after more detections have happened since then, KOI-4878.01 is already a confirmed KOI. Moreover, considering recent publications, I suggest that a new consensus should be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC) This article is already in several major Wikipedia languages made by other users: 日本語, polski, Português, Русский, Türkçe and 中文. There are other wiki articles about uncofirmed exoplanets, but this one stands out for possibly having the highest ESI. It's also considered a Extra-solar Planet Candidate by Simbad. This article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.07286.pdf says An example is KOI-4878.01, a potentially exciting Earth-sized planet with a 450d period and a S/N of 8. KOI-4878.01 also appears in literature. There are also other wiki articles about unconfirmed exoplanets with less relevance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CoRoT-7d, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_219134_g , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581g etc For these reasons I suggest keeping the article separately and not deleting/merging it.[reply]

KOI-4878.01 is already a confirmed KOI. I might as well mention that this is also false. See e.g. [1], which lists its status as a candidate. If it was confirmed, it would be designated Kepler-XXXXb. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an exoplanet candidate, but it's a confirmed candidate: http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-basic?Ident=KOI-4878.01&submit=SIMBAD+search ExoEditor 17:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Confirmed candidate" is contradictory (except for some radial velocity candidates but that's not relevant here). SIMBAD lists KOI-4878.01 as only an "Extra-solar Planet Candidate", not an "Extra-solar Confirmed Planet". SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the academic arena we distinguish between confirmed candidates and non-confirmed candidates. I always referred to KOI-4878.01 as a confirmed candidate only. Sorry for the misunderstanding. ExoEditor 18:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what is your basis for claiming that this is a "confirmed candidate"? As far as I can tell there has been no confirmation of either its existence or planetary nature, so it is an unconfirmed candidate. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for retain this article as a separate one and not merging it. My motivation is that, at least nowadays, it is the most Earth similar planet ever, there is a big number of references of it (most people interested on Earth-like planets know about it) and when they look for it on wikipedia they deserve a better introduction to the planet than a table of planets. about this--Figuerai (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The debate is also taking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal althought I think the best place to debate is here in this talkpage. As a recap:

The candidate KOI-4878.01 has been regarded as a 'a potentially exciting Earth-sized planet' here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.07286.pdf (here published: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/16)

Also in this book as the one with the highest ESI: https://books.google.es/books?id=UNA1DwAAQBAJ&q=KOI4878&pg=PT76&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=KOI4878&f=false

An the exoplanet is the main scenario of this sci-fi book (which means it has been widely and deeply talked about it in the book): https://www.unoeditorial.com/portfolio/tras-el-cielo-de-urano/

It has also been cited by several reliable secondary sources sucha as the Huffingtonpost.

It's an independent page in most Wikipedia languages, which shows there is consensus accross Wikipedia about keeping it as separate page.

Cheers ExoEditor 20:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The discussion of physical existence of KOI-4878.01 is irrelevant here. The topic has already attracted enough media and community (including other wikipedias) attention to make it notable. I oppose the merging/deleting. If after all KOI-4878.01 would not exist, it should be just categorized as Category:Disproven exoplanets.Trurle (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see HERE. The discussion has already been closed with a consensus to merge. As I said elsewhere in a comment deleted by the disruptive User:ExoEditor, the only (non-fictional) source providing significant coverage is a blog. It seems no more notable than any other KOI, except for its potential Earth-like properties, which don't mean much without confirmation. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is false. Tertiary references [12] [15] on page in question allocate at least two paragraphs for planet. The duplicate blog links [6], [9], [14] should be aggregated though.Trurle (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this planet candidate is proven not to exist, I would support deletion, per AfD's such as this and indeed this. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know and find your decisions outdated. Methods of planet validation have become more reliable in recent decade, therefore the policy is need to be revised now.Trurle (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This planet has not been validated, however. What policy are you saying needs to be revised? WP:NASTRO? SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:NASTRO is currently obsolete. I have two points: 1) Automatic notability by naked-eye magnitude is no longer meaningful in the current epoch of severe light pollution. 2) Planetary discovery papers are recently frequently combine different validation methods (most commonly transit and radial velocity for planetary system candidates), producing equivalent of 2 separate papers in epoch of ~2005. Therefore, two-papers notability rule is becoming significant hindrance, delaying wikipedia publication by several years in many cases.

That's something to discuss at WT:NASTRO then. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per NASTRO and CRYSTAL. Also, NOT INHERITED. If and when these type of candidates are verified and found notable, they can be spun off into separate articles. Now, not so much. It makes sense in the meantime to list exoplanet candidates in with the parent stars. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

KOI-4878 .png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

KOI-4878 time series.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to start an edit war...[edit]

the admins merged some of the articles you proposed, only those where consensus was reached

This is false. I merged the two articles with unanimous consensus to merge, while waiting for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus for the other two and close the discussion, which has not yet happened. The merge template needs to be on the article until the discussion is closed. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far there is consensus about removing that merging notice here. If you want to put it, please seek consensus. Otherwise I kindly suggest not to break the three-revert rule again Cheers.ExoEditor 17:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]