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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Earth (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-Earth mass", meaning simply less massive than Earth 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-Earth" should mean. For example, I can find no reference to PSR B1257+12 A being a "sub-Earth", as written in the current article. Dragons flight (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominated:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Earth
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interplanet
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Jupiter
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sub-Jupiter
• 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]
• Delete all - I can find a few mentions where the term "sub-earth" is used as an adjective, but nothing that establishes this term as an accepted classification for planets. The other terms seem also to be invented. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Pure original proposal, made in the hope, perhaps, that it will be popularized through Wikipedia. Maybe, someday, the IAU will adopt a classification system for exoplanets like the one that "BlueEarth" has proposed. Because of the method of detection, very few earth-sized planets have been found, because the gravitational effect on a star isn't as great as it is with a large planet. When a system is made, it will be by the members of the IAU. Great idea, but as with naming a star for someone for $49.95, it won't become part of scientific progress. Mandsford (talk) 03:48, 10 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 "sub-earth" to terrestrial planet as this term is used to describe less than Earth mass suspected terrestrial planets. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This class is related to super-Earth. This class include Mercury, Mars, and PSR B1257+12 A. In the future, this new class of extrasolar planets at less than 0.5 Earth mass will be discovered around normal stars, and IAU may invent this new class called sub-Earth to the astronomical literature, like it did when super-Earth was invented in 2007 after the discovery of Gliese 581 c. BlueEarth (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Blue, if you could even show that these terms are used in a publication, such as a book (not necessarily IAU), you'd have a chance. But if the IAU "may invent" it, that's proof enough that they haven't invented it. Mandsford (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The articles are simply dictionary definitions of the words; they don't cite any references; and they are utterly useless. Ruslik (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—I don't see this term used academically in this context. It is employed, for example, when discussing a specific surface position on a planet, or in the context of orbits.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 11 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 23:44, 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) 18:34, 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.