Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatmough's planet types
- 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 of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
John Whatmough's classification system is not entirely scientific, it is an extension for artistic purposes of the Sudarsky classification system. In addition some of the material on the page is dubious - there are no known Vulcanoids, Mercury Venus and Earth are not jovian type planets. The place descriptions are also vague and possibly untrue for a given planetary system, e.g. if the closest planet is in the water zone. Chaos syndrome 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Whatmough seems possibly borderline notable; an article on him or his work might be welcome, if he does meet the standards for notability. Or maybe a mention on another relevant page. Anyway, this is too specialized. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. It appears that Whatmough died in September. I haven't found any information about his qualifications or work besides his website. -- Kjkolb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't the issue. The article cites no independent sources, and I cannot find any evidence that anyone has ever acknowledged this system of classification. (Sudarsky, in contrast, not only had at least two co-authors on his paper, but had the paper published in the Astrophysical Journal.) I was going to write "anyone apart from Whatmough", but upon reading this page (which makes no mention of classifying Venus, Mars, and Earth in this way and does not even contain the phrase "sulfur jovian") it appears that not even Whatmough acknowledged the system outlined in this article. As far as I can tell, Whatmough used the Sudarsky system. This is simply not a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, I should have been more specific. By notability, I meant that it hasn't been accepted. Even if it was obscure, yet accepted, I would have voted to keep. -- Kjkolb 08:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and comments. --Thephotoman 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete r3m0t talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This term is not only neologism invented by the creator of the article, but the article is also wrong (as if the original classification system wasn't already very speculative). Although I'm a great fan of Mr. Whatmough's website, there is no option but to delete this article.--Jyril 21:52, 23 December 2005 (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.