Deletion of List of nearest terrestrial exoplanets

Comment: to List of terrestrial extrasolar planets  A list of exoplanets is inherently notable.  Having a list of exoplanets which are terrestrial is inherently notable (although you might have multiple lists within that article for terrestrial size-wise vs. terrestrial habitability-wise) However, it is not our place to decide that the distance is inherently notable.  Having a sortable table allows our users to sort by any criteria they choose and I think steers well clear of  and  which I feel the "nearest" part is skirting the edges of
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: Perfectly valid list using objective, measurable criteria.  There seems to be some serious confusion as to what  actually prohibits, which is ''not'' data attributable to a reliable, published source, but that articles not proffer "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."  Beyond that, it's positively baroque to claim that this might be an impermissible "how to guide" based on nothing beyond unfounded speculation as to the article creator's purpose
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: to List of planetary systems. Article is |speculative of whether/not these are terrestrial, and hence the name is somewhat misleading. In addition, this may also fail ; FWIW, it could grow forever into a |indiscriminate list of ''possibly'' terrestrial exoplanets
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:LSC||WP:WHIM)