- 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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Inter-Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not an established category of planetary classifcation. No relevant google hits [1]. No relevant google scholar hits [2]. Dragons flight (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominated:
- All by the same author, who seems to be inventing or promoting a novel system of classification. Dragons flight (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete all as WP:NOR violations. 23skidoo (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR and WP:V Artene50 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see related category Category:Inter-Earths 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—No evidence of use academically, although it is employed for certain web site names, &c.—RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Term not in use. Spacepotato (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research, unverifiable, non-notable, and a wonderful example of what an article should not be. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into one I have never heard of this type of planet before, but I do not wish to discourage the use and or deny its origins (benefit of the dough). However, I do not believe that these planetary categories should have their own article (so I support them being deleted). However, I think they should be mentioned in a single planetary article. Maybe, since "Appearance of extrasolar planets" is to mention anything about extrasolar planets (and not only the Sudarsky types), maybe we could add a new section. Maybe "planetary masses", which could mention these types of planets, or at least mention them. — NuclearVacuum 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article appearance of extrasolar planets is should only be about how extrasolar planets may look like. Merging into this article may not be good idea. Maybe we should create and merge this to a new article planetary mass classification. BlueEarth (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2008 (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.