Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carbon giant


 * 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 carbon star. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Carbon giant

 * – ( View AfD View log )

So in February, I redirected this to Carbon star but someone thought that was incorrect and it's not the same thing. The whole deal is still w/o any sources, and apparently there aren't any to be found. We need people who know about the topic, just to be sure. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect: It was me who reverted the redirect, on the grounds that the article did appear to be talking about a kind of planet rather than a star, and I could find no relevant GHits - though I did not check GScholar. But I now think that was wrong and it should be redirected to Carbon star after all. I can find no GHits at all referring to a "carbon giant" planet, but a handful of GScholar hits referring to stars. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to carbon star. Literature is obvious and clear. A carbon giant is a carbon star. Just look at Google scholar. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to carbon star. A NASA ADS search for the term "carbon giant" brings up articles that use this term to refer to carbon-rich giant stars. Not sure it is worth saving the content of the article, it is unreferenced and it would perhaps be better to redo it in the carbon planet article based on Kuchner and Seager (2005) . Icalanise (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * it might be better to rename carbon planet to carbide planet, to allow carbon planet to cover types other than terrestrial, as overview of all carbon-rich planets, with the terrestrial type at "carbide planet". 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree with the split to "carbide planet". Firstly, the term "carbide planet" does not appear to be actually used in the literature (NASA ADS search returns no results for this term), and a Google search seems to reveal mostly mirrors of the Wikipedia article that leads me to suspect "carbide planet" is a term made up by the Wikipedia editor. Secondly there isn't really enough material in the article to justify a split at the current time. Icalanise (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to carbon star, because according to [Google Scholar] it seems to mean a star and not a planet. Tideflat (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to carbon star as above, especially the original un-redirecter. --Bejnar (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to carbon star. As an astronomer, the first thing that comes to mind with the phrase 'carbon giant' is a carbon star with luminosity class III. The description in the article as it stands is nonsensical anyway - such a planet would be referred to as a 'carbon-rich planet', or a 'carbon-rich gas giant' if it was a gas giant. Modest Genius talk 19:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above. I don't believe that the combination of "carbon" and "giant" is a recognized category for a planet (although it is for the stellar type). There is the example of WASP-12b, but there it is described by NASA as a "carbon-rich world". Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (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.