Deletion of KOI 701.03

Comment: As mentioned above, this is NOT an article about a planet, it's an article about an interesting signal, and its mention in reliable sources establishes notability per . Despite this, some editors have been quick to point out the likelihood of verification, or lack thereof. The Borucki paper does assign each of its candidate planets a confidence interval ranking number of 1 through 4. KOI 701.03 is in Rank 3, which means it has a greater than 60% likelihood of confirmation. Of the other four "interesting signals", KOI 1026.01, KOI 268.01, and KOI 854.01 are in Rank 3 or 4, both of which are in the roughly >60% confidence interval, while KOI 326.01 is in Rank 2, which makes it >80% confidence. Also note that Rank 1 is only given to those candidates already published elsewhere as confirmed planets. Finally, note that the article's wording has now been cleaned up a tad to avoid OR (more cleanup to come) and new sources have been added (likely more sources to come
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: Refreshing my memory about , I find that, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by ." The General Notability Guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." As a number of reliable sources have been provided, and many more are certain to come, it would seem that this article satisfies the requirements for inclusion unless there's something I haven't noticed in  that would exclude it. In particular, I would note that there's nothing in the guidelines requiring a subject to be scientifically verified...or indeed real...''merely being mentioned'' by a significant number of reliable sources is sufficient for exclusion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: if this proves to not be a planet, it will quickly be forgotten, as many other such signals indicative of planets have been already, with no further study or mention of them ever to come about. So, either this is  planet or a  article about a signal. If it's a signal article, it would appear to violate . Special:Contributions/65.94.45.238|65.94.45.238
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per &mdash;Candidate object of interest has no secondary sources available at this time. This object has the lowest vetting rating in the original, solitary source paper and thus might not even be real. How did the editor come up with a planetary mass? Is that OR?&mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)