Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appearance of extrasolar planets

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 keep (or no consensus, take your pick). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance of extrasolar planets

This page is very speculative and gives undue weight to one particular theoretical model of extrasolar planets. The model described is largely untested on account of the lack of direct detections of gaseous planets intermediate between the hot Jupiters and Jupiter itself. Furthermore, it does not perform particularly well where it can be tested: it predicts too high an albedo for Jupiter, and too much water absorption on hot Jupiters - furthermore, hot Jupiters seem to be surprisingly dark (e.g. HD 149026 b). This article gives the impression that the theoretical models are more robust than they actually are. Chaos syndrome 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment disclosure: I originally created this article. Chaos syndrome 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article leads to speculation and confusion. But perhaps a rename to Sudarsky Scale might help. After all this hypothesis is well know and there should be some reference of it on Wikipedia.Ricnun 20:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as Ricnun said, seems to be a valid/noteable (and well sourced) hypothesis. Fosnez 20:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge with extrasolar planets, ensuring that the above concerns are met according to guidelines. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for Sudarsky scale, if indeed Sudarsky is a notable astronomer Mandsford 00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would strongly oppose renaming to "Sudarsky scale" as this would be coining a neologism. The term "Sudarsky scale" is not used anywhere, by anyone (do a Google search). In the event that the result is not to delete, I would support the proposed merger to extrasolar planets. Chaos syndrome 07:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Merge with extrasolar planets. Sudarsky uses the term "composition classes" in the referenced papers. I'm not sure that "Sudarsky Scale" would be appropriate unless it comes into widespread usage. — RJH (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The future space probes such as New Worlds Mission, which will launch in 2013, will analyze the gas giant planets to find the actual composition of clouds and actual temperature range; albedo, color, and appearance. BlueEarth 00:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't even know if such space missions are going to fly or fall foul of budget cuts. Chaos syndrome 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Extrasolar planets article. Andrew (My talk) 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's what most people are going to think about when they read about exoplanets. Battle Ape 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make sense... surely if it's what most people are going to think about exoplanets, it should go into the exoplanets article? Chaos syndrome 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve; poss. rename; do not merge into extrasolar planets, as that article is already too long. Gandalf61 14:01, 10 September 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.