Talk:LkCa 15 b

Debatable claim about first accreting exoplanet
The article claims that LkCa 15b is the first exoplanet seen in the process of active accretion. But a paper that appeared a week or two prior reports that a different protoplanet, HD 100546 b, is in the process of active accretion: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02526 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.255.216 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The evidence for accretion from LkCa 15b is stronger due to it's high brightness at H Alpha and low brightness in the optical continuum. HD100546 b's evidence for forming planets is a bit more debatable, with an alternate hypothesis of a clump in the spiral density wave being feasible (though probably not preferred based upon all of the data).  That being said, I agree with your point.  The statement in the nature press release is probably a bit too strong.  Martin Cash (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

LkCa 15 b does not exist
This planet does not exist, see (Currie et al., 2019). Renerpho (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge
We usually don't have articles on disproven/refuted exoplanets. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 23:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I might be too late here, but we had a similar situation for Fomalhaut b, as well as Neith and Vulcan, so why delete this one too? Just because a [exo]planet is disproven/refuted, doesnt mean we should delete the entire thing, unless its not notable on its own or is not a first of its type (which is not the case for LkCa 15 b). GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as both pages are small and readers are best served by having the information in one place because of the context the broader topic provides. Klbrain (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per Kepler-1229b and Klbrain. Fomalhaut b is an exceptional case; this isn't. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)