- 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]
- Sub-Jupiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not an established category of planetary classifcation. This one is somewhat more ambiguous than the related terms listed below. "Sub-Jupiter mass", meaning simply less massive than Jupiter does occasionally get used, but the author seems to be inventing/promoting a novel heirarchy of mass terms including a specific definition of what "Sub-Jupiter" should mean. For example, I can find no reference to 54 Piscium b and 55 Cancri c, etc. being referenced as "Sub-Jupiters", as written in the current article. Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 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) 22:53, 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 and redirect to giant planet, as this term is used (and the term subjovian is used more), to describe planets massing less than Jupiter. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This class is related to super-Jupiter. Sub-Jupiter is also called saturnian planet. This article describes the mass range, probable radius range, and examples of saturnian planets. I like when somebody add a little more info to this article. BlueEarth (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—I don't see this term used academically in this context. It is used, for example, when discussing surface positions on Jovian satellites.—RJH (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This class is related to brown dwarf. Sub-Jupiter is also called saturnian planet. This article describes the mass range, probable radius range, and examples of saturnian planets from the 300+ discoverd extrasolar planets. Add super-Earth to the list if you are not just firetrucking around. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show that the mass range, radius range, etc. are based on anything other than the whims of BlueEarth (talk · contribs)? The author seems to have picked particular ranges out of a hat while promoting a classification scheme whose ranges he invented himself. By contrast there is plentiful discussion of Super-Earths, but almost no references to sub-Jupiters. Dragons flight (talk) 22:43, 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]
- Delete—appears to be an invention of the author. Spacepotato (talk) 19:50, 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.