Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary mass type

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. --Core desat 05:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary mass type

This is basically a neologism. A search on Google for "'planetary mass type' -Wikipedia" turns up no articles that use the phrase. A search at the ADS Abstract Service also shows that this phrase is not used in astronomy. Planet already covers much of the material presented here, but it includes references and generally accepted scientific terminology. In contrast, planetary mass type may contain original research. This article should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the classification system in the article is astronomy standard, keep: 7 ordinary pages point to it for the information in it: this info was likely put in its own file, not in Planet, so users would not have to download and ferret through all of Planet for this information. This article is here for the information, not for the name: its author had to call this page something. If this page could have had a better name, rename it. If the information is adequately duplicated in another Wikipedia page, redirect. Anthony Appleyard 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:BlueEarth, who also created planetary mass type added these "classifications" to the other articles (without references). This is very dangerous original research. Dr. Submillimeter 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also note that the ADS Abstract Service is a professional astronomy resource. If the classification system was in use, the terms would turn up there. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research.--JyriL ^talk 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also note that I have nominated subterrestrial for deletion (see the discussion here). This is another unreferenced article created by the same user who wrote planetary mass type. Dr. Submillimeter 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Neologism. --ScienceApologist 11:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not appear to refer to a professional astronomical standard. Looks nice, however Delete as WP:OR.Sdp1978 02:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. This is not a classification system currently in use. Scientists seem to have a hard enough time agreeing on what a planet is in any official context, let alone coming up with a comprehensive classification system like this. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can you please add references and sources to planetary mass type article. Thank you! BlueEarth 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the original article, so you know best where the information comes from.--— JyriL ^talk 16:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. However, I would support its recreation or retention given its backing by an authoritative source and/or evidence of its being used by the astronomical community. --EMS | Talk 20:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know the author put a lot of work into this. But there is no authoritative source that I know about that has published this classification scheme, and it is against Wikipedia policy to create one here. If anyone can find an appropriate source, I would be glad to reverse my recommendation. Vegasprof 21:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as made up in one school day. And brown dwarfs are not planets (see the Extrasolar planet working group for IAU). [1] 132.205.44.134 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In fairness User:BlueEarth indicated that a brown dwarf is not a planet in his section on brown dwarfs and in the table at the bottom of the page. Though I agree it would seem inappropriate to have them in a planetary classification system.Sdp1978 15:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless adequate sources are provided. Someguy1221 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to copy of other people's work. The information on that page is a combination of my ideas and Wilbur's ideas on the |Extrasolar Vision forum of my early suggestion of a planetary classification, John W.'s PCL list, and other suggestions from other people on Extrasolar Forum and Arcbuilder's BBS. Talk:Appearance_of_extrasolar_planets, here on the last section, you can see BlueEarth knows of the Extrasolar Vision forum.
Improved I added four references and one external link to the article. BlueEarth 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of the classification scheme still needs references. Also, "A teenager Chris Dybala developed the planetary mass type in April 2007" is not a valid reference. Moreover, the introduction now clearly indicates that this violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Dr. Submillimeter 22:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The first reference, which appears to refer to the origin of the classification system, should refer to a primary of secondary source see WP:OR. This reference does not refer to anything and is therefore an invalid reference. Also your reference suggests that this is original research which is not premitted.Sdp1978 02:49, 21 April 2007 (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.