- 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 redirect to Brown dwarf#History. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Planetar (astronomy)
- Planetar (astronomy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The term "planetar" is invented. It does not appear in the scientific literature, although there are several real terms for substellar planetary-mass objects. As something that sounds plausible but is wrong, this is one of the more harmful kinds of bad article on Wikipedia. Xerxes (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Brown dwarf#History, where the term is mentioned. This is of course a real term in astronomy, as evidenced by this Nature news artcle.. But according to this book, the term never caught on to the same extent as "brown dwarf". As a consequence, I've been unable to find multiple in depth reliable sources discussing a planetar as a separate thing from a brown dwarf. Given the RS establishing the link, it seems reasonable to redirect this article to Brown dwarf#History, where the term is mentioned with the minimal due weight. --Mark viking (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Nature blog is an interesting link; however, that's just a blog attributing a quote to individuals. Even those attributed individuals never use the term in the peer-reviewed literature. If we redirect, then I think substellar object is more appropriate. (That article has similar issues with the prominence of the coinage "substar", which is scant but present in the literature.) -- Xerxes (talk)
- Redirect to ... um, well, somewhere. Quoting from this 2012 Springer-published book: "Synonyms for free-floating planets include – Inter-stellar planet, Inter-stellar comet, Isolated Planetary Mass Object (IPMO), Orphan planet, Planemo, Planetar, Rogue planet, and Sub-brown dwarf." (p. 11). Which is, you know, good times and all, since several of those terms are not strictly synonymous in actual literature (planemo, rogue planet, and sub-brown dwarf are not freely interchangeable). Maybe rogue planet is the best target, adding "planetar" to the hodgepodge list of equivalent terms already present? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 10:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 10:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA1000 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.