- 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]
- Interplanet (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]
- Redirect to planet as I was going to suggest redirecting to interplanetary but that redirects to planet, too.. Article itself violates WP:NOR 23skidoo (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the page doesn't even make sense. And the popular press calls things "super-uranian", "super-neptunian", etc... "interplanet" makes me think of dwarf planets. As its defined, it covers water worlds (hot ice giants) and ice giants that are already better known that this division. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there is an article at InterPlaNet... 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment please see related category Category:Interplanets 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Doesn't appear to be used academically. May show up as a typo for interplantary, so a redirect could make sense.—RJH (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to planet. Term not in use. Spacepotato (talk) 01:53, 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) 18:36, 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.