Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eccentric Jupiter


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and 1 "incubate" suggestion. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Eccentric Jupiter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This seems to be a borderline neologism. A google search of "eccentric jupiter" returns 42 hits, most of which are not used in the manner of "eccentric Jupiter" as a term, but rather "an eccentric Jupiter-like planet" or something similar. For this reason, an exact definition does not seem to exist. The article uses e > 0.1 as the dividing line, but I was unable to find anything backing that up. Without any significant usage of the term or a clear definition, I do not think it should be an article. James McBride (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * incubate - "an eccentric Jupiter-like planet" is exactly what this is talking about. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In comparing "eccentric Jupiter" as a term and "an eccentric Jupiter-like planet," I just meant that eccentric performs the same modification it does for anything in an orbit, and there is nothing special about "eccentric Jupiter" taken together. Maybe I did not really express the thought well, but my point was there is no need for an article that defines the combination of those things when the definition of the first part and the definition of the second say what this article says. There is an article about eccentricity and an article about Jovian planets, and if someone is unsure of what "eccentric Jupiter-like planet" means, they would probably be served better by looking at the article on orbital eccentricity and on Jovian planets than they would be by looking at this article. James McBride (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. However, the article makes the point that such an object can prevent the formation of a habitable planet - something neither "eccentric" nor "Jovian planet" deals with. One the third-hand, it is probably something that an eccentric planet smaller than a Jupiter would also prevent. Hrm.... maybe this should be merged into planetary formation or something like that. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, the point about inhibiting formation (or at least stability) of a habitable planet would belong in the article on planet formation. James McBride (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: search for "eccentric Jupiters" gave 645 google hits. I think it is a rare term rather than a neologism, and the name is not yet stabilized so that we won't know whether it ends up in "eccentric Jovians". Now, AFAIK, the "eccentric Jupiters" came up as a surprise when exoplanets were first discovered, the astronomers having expected the first planets to be like Jupiter with near-circular orbits. "Eccentric Jupiters" was an enigma, and the current theories explaining and distinguishing "eccentric Jupiters" from "normal Jupiters", is that the "eccentric Jupiters" are a result of a solar globule with a more massive proto-planetary cloud than the solar globules from which "normal Jupiters" emerge. The more massive proto-planetary cloud causes heavier planets causing an unstable jovian system, which "decays" into systems with "eccentric Jupiters" and "episolar Jovians/Jupiters" whatever. The term is believed to be a natural kind, and natural kinds are anti-neologisms, they existed before the existence of humans, much more so before the existence of Wikipedia. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or I should say: WP:PALEOLOGISM. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Three usages documented on talk page. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Though you found a few sources, none of them give any definition of the term, or any hint that the term carries any special meaning beyond a Jupiter that is eccentric. It seems to me that a term requiring an article should have definition beyond the meaning of the two terms separately, or why have an article for it at all? James McBride (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of one term, not two terms, so I don't understand what you refer to. Terms are substantive constructs, in this case a noun with an adjective, defining a concept within a science or technology. My links was for providing examples of scientific usage, and to provide a basis for enhancing the article. The article should survive on the reason that it reflects a natural kind based term, not a WP:NEO. The links provided indicate that it is a natural kind based term, especially spaceref.com indicating that metallicity is a non-definition factor correlated to the solar systems producing eccentric jupiters. The intention behind catching WP:NEOs is mostly to catch word constructs that have no real meaning except an ephemeral shortlived slogan. When scientific correlations can be found with a category and a non-definition-related factor (in philosophy called an "accidental" quality), then we have a reason to believe that it is something real. The something real behind the wording of Eccentric Jupiters makes the article viable, even if the naming of the article might change. Or to put it another way: "eccentric Jupiters" are not just "Jupiters" that are "eccentric", they emerged for other reasons that "normal Jupiters did", and they occurred for similar reasons that the "hot Jupiters" aka "epistellar Jupiters" did. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no need to be pedantic. My meaning was clear. The press release does not constitute strong evidence to me that these are a "natural kind" as you keep claiming. In fact, it says that the relation between forming planets by core accretion in a metal rich disk and eccentric gas giants is unclear. You can verify yourself at that there is no clear correlation between metallicity and eccentricity. Moreover, I am unaware of any refereed article since that claims that planet formation via core accretion in a massive disk should be more likely to produce eccentric gas giants, though I imagine if you can dig hard enough you can find one. I think it is safe to say there is no consensus though, with papers as recent as 2008  noting that the eccentricity distribution remains poorly understood. Finally, where do you draw the line between an eccentric Jupiter and a "normal" one? Maybe if we could track every planet from its formation to today, we might be able to split them up in to natural kinds based on formation mechanism and subsequent evolution, but how do we look at a planet now with an eccentricity of 0.09 and say that it belongs to one class and a planet with an eccentricity of 0.11 and say that it belongs to another definitively? That argues against any observational classification of eccentric Jupiters as assigning them to their natural kind. That doesn't even seem particularly important to me, by the way, but you have placed great emphasis on it being a natural kind, but the evidence for that is very incomplete. James McBride (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, oh, as for "pedantic" why are we discussing this here, and why are your postings as long as mine? Since you speak of two terms instead of one, since you refer to a neologism where I claim there isn't one, I tried to make it reasonable to believe that here is instead a natural kind, not a WP:NEO, I tried to dissolve some apparent confusions of "term" vs arbitrary substantive cluster and WP:NEO vs natural kind. In order for an AfD to "succeed" one have to apply and "prove" 3-4 conditions from WP:DEL, example in Infinity of Heaven (future article from dead author). Here is one condition that is (not yet?) successfully applied. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 05:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said there was no need to be "pedantic," I simply meant the fact that you felt the need to define "term" when I incorrectly applied it to "eccentric" and "Jupiter" when used separately. As for the rest of your point, I was simply trying to show that there is little to no existing evidence that it is a natural kind, which I think is a reasonable response. As for satisfying 3-4 conditions in order to be deleted, I was completely unaware, having never been involved in AfD before. I just kept coming across links to eccentric Jupiter, which I found frustrating since the article is misleading and unsourced. My first instinct was to try to improve it, but upon finding meager evidence for an established meaning beyond "gas giant in an eccentric orbit," AfD seemed the best course of action. James McBride (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, oh, this is not a peer review, nor a discussion page about the philosophy of science, nor the reality of eccentric Jupiters. This AfD is a list of statements for or against the existence of the article Eccentric Jupiters and whether. You trying to shoot hole in my argumentation does not belong to here, since this is not an academic arena, but instead a librarians consensus system. In my imagination, the solar systems giving rise to epistellar and eccentric Jovians "might" be a case for the article not being a WP:NEO, a "might" is enough for WP:NEO being in doubt. That should be enough, discussing the factuallity here is out of context, that should be performed on a net forum somewhere, this is a forum for construction of an encyclopedia, not a scientific discussion. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * and I'm still awaiting your response on your user talk page, so that I can explain how to succeed in removing articles... Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 07:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge&mdash;There appear to be enough scientific journal articles that use the expression "eccentric Jupiter" (or some variant thereof) that it deserves some form of coverage. However, none of them capitalize 'eccentric'. Hence, the word 'eccentric' is used as an adjective rather than a proper noun and the capitalization should be removed from the article. Personally I'm not particular as to whether it is covered here or merged into a related article.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That it is used as an adjective seems to me to support it not having its own article, and is more or less the point I was trying to make above. Some of the material should certainly be merged, but that eccentric is used to modify Jupiter or Jovian does not seem like a good basis for having an article. There are also instances of "eccentric hot Jupiter" being used, which I would also argue does not merit its own article. James McBride (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We could probably develop a single, solid article on Jupiter-like planets, beginning with a merge of the useful material in Hot Jupiter, Eccentric Jupiter and Jovian planet (and maybe "puffy planet" too :).&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge&mdash;It may have some use even though the term is not much different than Hot Jupiter. But most(?) Hot Jupiters  have low eccentricities.  I'm not sure the definition of an "eccentric Jupiter" is any more poorly defined than the definition of a "puffy planet". -- Kheider (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had vague plans of putting up a few other articles at AfD, such as puffy planet, pending the way the AfD for eccentric Jupiter proceeded. Most gas giants on eccentric orbits are actually not hot Jupiters. In contrast with this article though, hot Jupiter is a term with a clear definition, and the term also has some meaning beyond the basic idea that it is a Jupiter that is hot. James McBride (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend try an AfD or a merger request with that one, even if this AfD fails, since to me it seems much more unclear that a puffy planet is a natural kind. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious how Hot europa turns out. (Yikes.) I did try to improve puffy planet back in March by calling it what it is. -- Kheider (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - taking a look at the mass-period diagram for exoplanets shows two major groupings of extrasolar giant planets: the hot Jupiters (periods less than about 10 days) and a second group at periods exceeding about 100 days, exhibiting a wide range of eccentricities, with a sparsely-populated region of the mass-period diagram separating the two groups. Therefore it seems like a good idea to have some discussion of this second population of giant planets if we've got an article specifically about the hot Jupiters. On the other hand I guess it may be open to debate what the best name for this population of planets is: eccentric giants or eccentric Jupiters seem to be in circulation, despite the fact that this population extends to near-circular orbits at the low-eccentricity end of the distribution. Icalanise (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2010 (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.