Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kepler-105

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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-105

[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)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. Zero popular coverage and no scientific publications that I could find specifically about this star or a small number of stars. Lithopsian (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I created the page to have a place for KOI-115.03 to redirect to. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC) ~~Merge~~ Redirect It is not notable, we could ~~merge~~ redirect it into the (very long) list of Kepler planets. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: KOI-115.03 is an unconfirmed planet candidate, and the only link to it is on List of smallest exoplanets. At one point I commented out the list entry, but that was reverted. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatever of satisfying the notability guidelines. The one cited source could not by any stretch be considered to be substantial coverage; it just confirms that the star exists and gives a few trivial details such as it size. As for keeping the article because it exists in order to have a redirect to it, that must be one of the most bizarre reasons for keeping I have ever seen in any deletion discussion. We have redirects because they help to lead to articles on notable subjects, not the other way around. JBW (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's plenty of papers mentioning Kepler-105, but always as just one item in a long list of stars. That's not enough for notability. Tercer (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one reference doesn't establish notability, and the content of the article itself is minimal, providing little to merge.PopePompus (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2021 (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.