426:: No, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And I do respect that fact as well as agree with it. That was why I was suggesting at the least, point the individual to where they CAN correctly find the information and explain why it's not here. This would save data space on the servers (which is the real reason behind this need of this criteria) and help those who have not been taught to properly use tools such as Google or have access to libraries (no need to be condescending to those less educated and or misfortunate). Additionally, there are those who live in areas where access to search engines are restricted and this gives them the ability to still access the information easier. As for responsibility, it can be argued that by choosing to vote, edit, or create entries you are making an active choice to hold the hand of anyone who comes to Knowledge in search of knowledge by becoming a gatekeeper to the knowledge they are seeking. Even if done just once. Many of which of this younger generation, never being taught properly how to use other tools or to look elsewhere. Many of the elder generation, they are also stuck in this same situation simply because of disconnect by technological advancement. Having a single line explanation why there is NO information on the site about Kepler-1606b here but a link to where they can find the information, now that would make Knowledge become even more of a source of knowledge and a useful tool. It wouldn't be for ALL things, no. This isn't Google. But, instead of holding a hand it would point those seeking the knowledge in the right direction and hold a place for future expansion when science catches up with itself. (My final argument on my thoughts in this discussion.)
330:: Agreed, astronomical objects don't need to be notable, just a location and as more information develops it can be updated. Additionally, it takes time for science to catch up and go through the list of all the systems and planets they are finding to fully research and determine exactly what they have found. They do not have large teams doing this kind of research and most of the teams are often student or volunteer contribution at that compared to other kinds of research where lots of money and personal are being poured into it.
376:: While I feel and understand your frustration, there is no reason to attack the individuals posting the vote to add to discussion. That in and of itself does nothing for the discussion and changes it away from the point of the discussion. I have already, before making my vote, read the requirements, and still made my vote and will explain. TOO many today do not know anywhere else to go for this information but here. It isn't taught anymore where or how to look for it. If anything, site them over to a site such as
244:. The only references to this object in scientific papers are are as part of very long lists of exoplanet discoveries. I couldn't find any popular coverage although it is found in several online exoplanet databases. At the deletion discussion for the parent star, it has been suggested that it should be deleted or redirected.
380:
where they can get more or proper information beyond the resources of the
Knowledge entry. Personally, I made my entry as plain as I did to try to 'open' civil discussion as I saw none. I see too many coming to Knowledge looking for information then not knowing where to go there after. Most do not
209:
381:
know how to use Google or any other search engine properly so need assistance finding the proper locations. A small link to assist won't hurt, only help
Knowledge's reputation of where to look for knowledge.
467:
57:
53:
353:
edit in
Knowledge, and it's a !vote that completely ignores Knowledge policy. Astronomical objects, like everything else, do need to be notable to have a Knowledge article. See
416:
170:
261:
203:
404:
117:
102:
403:. Nor, frankly, is it our responsibility to hold the hand of everyone who lacks the media literacy skills to do a tiny bit of library research.
312:
480:
143:
138:
147:
97:
90:
17:
224:
130:
191:
111:
107:
501:
40:
400:
316:
185:
476:
431:
386:
335:
67:
181:
497:
484:
458:
435:
412:
390:
366:
339:
320:
301:
273:
253:
72:
36:
349:
These keep !votes illustrate well why I think new users shouldn't be allowed in AfD. Both users have a
427:
382:
331:
285:
269:
249:
377:
231:
454:
290:
288:
217:
311:: Believe me, like geographical locations, astronomical objects don't need to be much notable.
472:
134:
86:
61:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
496:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
446:
408:
362:
354:
297:
241:
265:
245:
197:
450:
126:
78:
357:
for specific guidelines. Frankly, how did you even find this deletion discussion?
164:
358:
293:
287:, where it is just mentioned in a big list, it is mentioned in these two papers
56:. Policy based rationales point to deleting, however, redirecting to
492:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
405:
Extrasolar planets don't get articles just for being discovered
468:
List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope
58:
List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope
54:
List of exoplanets discovered using the Kepler space telescope
401:
Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information
160:
156:
152:
216:
284:I searched for it, and besides the discovery paper
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
504:). No further edits should be made to this page.
260:Note: This discussion has been included in the
262:list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions
230:
8:
118:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
259:
292:, again just as an item in a big list.
7:
24:
103:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
60:makes sense as a search term.
1:
449:. Non-notable exoplanet. --
93:(AfD)? Read these primers!
521:
485:18:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
459:06:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
436:02:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
417:00:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
391:20:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
367:19:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
340:18:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
321:18:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
302:21:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
274:19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
254:19:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
494:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
73:12:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
470:. Not notable enough.
378:kepler-1606-b at NASA
91:Articles for deletion
50:delete and redirect
276:
108:Guide to deletion
98:How to contribute
512:
483:
235:
234:
220:
168:
150:
88:
34:
520:
519:
515:
514:
513:
511:
510:
509:
508:
502:deletion review
471:
177:
141:
125:
122:
85:
82:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
518:
516:
507:
506:
488:
487:
473:🪐Kepler-1229b
461:
439:
438:
420:
419:
394:
393:
370:
369:
343:
342:
324:
323:
313:95.162.206.118
305:
304:
278:
277:
238:
237:
174:
121:
120:
115:
105:
100:
83:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
517:
505:
503:
499:
495:
490:
489:
486:
482:
478:
474:
469:
465:
462:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
440:
437:
433:
429:
425:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
396:
395:
392:
388:
384:
379:
375:
372:
371:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
306:
303:
299:
295:
291:
289:
286:
283:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
258:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
172:
166:
162:
158:
154:
149:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
119:
116:
113:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
95:
94:
92:
87:
80:
77:
75:
74:
71:
70:
65:
64:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
493:
491:
463:
442:
423:
397:
373:
350:
346:
327:
308:
281:
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
127:Kepler-1606b
84:
79:Kepler-1606b
68:
63:Dennis Brown
62:
49:
47:
31:
28:
445:- It fails
204:free images
481:contribs🪐
428:FalconGrey
409:XOR'easter
383:FalconGrey
332:FalconGrey
266:Lithopsian
246:Lithopsian
498:talk page
451:SimoneD89
447:WP:NASTRO
355:WP:NASTRO
242:WP:NASTRO
37:talk page
500:or in a
464:Redirect
171:View log
112:glossary
39:or in a
424:Comment
374:Comment
347:Comment
210:WP refs
198:scholar
144:protect
139:history
89:New to
443:Delete
398:Delete
359:Tercer
351:single
294:Tercer
282:Delete
240:Fails
182:Google
148:delete
225:JSTOR
186:books
165:views
157:watch
153:links
16:<
477:talk
455:talk
432:talk
413:talk
387:talk
363:talk
336:talk
328:Keep
317:talk
309:Keep
298:talk
270:talk
250:talk
218:FENS
192:news
161:logs
135:talk
131:edit
466:to
232:TWL
169:– (
52:to
479:|
475:|
457:)
434:)
415:)
407:.
389:)
365:)
338:)
319:)
300:)
272:)
264:.
252:)
212:)
163:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
69:2¢
66:-
453:(
430:(
411:(
385:(
361:(
334:(
315:(
296:(
268:(
248:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
167:)
129:(
114:)
110:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.