Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QuentinQuade (talk | contribs) at 04:48, 4 April 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

List of potentially habitable exoplanets

List of potentially habitable exoplanets (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)

This is a WP:POVFORK of List of exoplanets. It is based on an index which is was invented to scale to Earth-like characteristics. It says absolutely nothing about habitability and, to the extent that it does, it is based on unpublished claims. jps (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable subject even if (and I say if) currently not-so-well-sourced. The bulk of the list (i.e. at least which exoplanets are considered potentially habitable) is taken from the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog (check it on archive.org if presently down), maintained by an educational institution, which even a cursory Google search will show is considered something non-dismissable by various sources. The list itself had been yanked from the article shortly before its nomination for deletion; I have restored it and I hope it is allowed to stay there for the duration of this discussion, which will otherwise be pretty moot if the list is not there to delete. LjL (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list is problematically referring to an unpublished original invention by the person who is maintaining that site, which is 100% WP:SELFPUB and therefore not a reliable source. We can easily incorporate the features which may indicate rockiness or existence of the planet in the habitable zone at List of exoplanets. This list is a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. jps (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The site" is actually a university's official website, so we really cannot say that whoever is maintaining those specific pages within the site is "self-publishing". LjL (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes we can. It is owned by Méndez. That's who updates the website and he has full editorial control. jps (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • You sound quite familiar with this Méndez by the way you describe this. Hopefully you don't have a personal vendetta or other problem them because that would likely not make you very neutral about this whole set of articles you're trimming or trying to get deleted. LjL (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • The guy is pretty visible in popularizing his ESI. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. Only we can't take it as being more relevant than a popularization. Right now, it's being used incorrectly at Wikipedia to imply something like a consistent measurement, which it is not. It is merely the opinion on how "Earth-like" something is, and there are lots of ways to characterize that other than ESI. jps (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • How do we know this that Méndez is popularizing the ESI through the media? I mean do you have anything to cite this with? I'm actually quite intrigued about this now. But as I said below you are making it sound like we are doing a Conflict of intrest with this guy which (at least for me) is not the case. QuentinQuade (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'll be honest It looks like the internet has never met Abel Méndez from PHL actually! A basic search shows the PHL/HEC website and some other booring profiles, However the 3rd result shows his twitter which quite frankly if it's real or not I cannot decide. But all in all I fall to see his names appear in a basic google search where I would expect click-bate exoplanetology related articles would appear, or even some scientific papers. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Also I want to point out about the whole ESI Score controversy thing is that if we go to [1] and search for "Earth Similarity Index" a whole slew of peer reviewed papers will appear. Take this paper for example, A) Has no mention of Mendéz in it, B) It Mentions the Earth Simularity Index in the abstract, C) The use of the ESI is cited to Schulze-Makuch et al. 2011 which is a USD$55 Paper that you have to buy unfortunately, D) Even "Habitable Exoplanet Catalog" is mentioned as well. And the paper has been Accepted & Received Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Looking deeper in that google search if you click news the only mention of Mendez is in the article "Signs of Change in Cuba, by Rob Stuart" which leads my to wonder how was the concution made that Mendez was popularizing the ESI in the Media? QuentinQuade (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbuddy9: I think your improvements will be welcome, but for my information, what is actually unsourced (regardless of supposed unreliability) about the current table? LjL (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LjL:I've complained on WP:AST about lack of citations, I cannot verify the SPH, HZD or HZA values and I cannot find answers anywhere! This is extremely frustrating especially when new exoplanets pop up and I add them in I don't know where to get those values so I was told to make a new table and to separate the exoplanets in the Conservative HZ and the Optimistic HZ which is the new table format approach that PHL/HEC is taking and I think should be adopted here too. Davidbuddy9 Talk  18:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that we lack citations is because these aren't things that any serious scientist takes as more than games. Wikipedia is being used right now to legitimize this, and that's not right. Your complaint is justified and the ESI and all the other arbitrary schemes need to be removed if this list is to be retained. jps (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you make it sound like there is an inside job going around on Wikiproject Astronomy and that everyone is secretly working with this "Méndez" to secretly implanet the ESI into as many articles as possible. We use it here for a reason, not nessearly to jusify habitabilty but simply as a comparison of simularity between the Earth and these respective objects. QuentinQuade (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given comments above, this seems like a WP:COI issue and not a WP:OR issue and should be addressed to the editor(s) in question. A 3th party using ESI is entirely in the realm of what's allowed on WP, assuming the source of the information is accurately characterized and referenced.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any claim being made that the article's contents have been written by someone who is also the creator of the sources, which would be a COI (but would also in fact constitute WP:OR). I think the claim is just that the Habitable Exoplanets Catalog is a self-published work (even though it's on the site of an academic institution and seems to be highly cited to me, so I don't agree) and not peer-reviewed enough. Even if this were true, of course, it wouldn't automatically make the article's subject unencyclopedic. LjL (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ESI is a wholly different matter. If this page is based on the ESI it is problematic because ESI says basically nothing about habitability. The location in the habitable zone and the rockiness of the planet are the relevant things to consider according to experts. ESI is just one person's index about something similar to Earth. jps (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_potentially_habitable_exoplanets&oldid=713458556"