Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geophysical Planet Definition


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Geophysical Planet Definition

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page was de-PRODed.

This page serves no clear purpose that is not already covered in Planet. Planet covers what a planet is and there is no need for an entire page discussing a specific subset of the definition of what a planet is. This may fit into WP:A10, but since I already PRODed it, I figured I would take it here. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This page serves the same purpose as the IAU Planet Planet Definition wikipedia page. Also, this page DOES serve a purpose in that it clearly articulates the definition that many planetary scientists use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasaman58 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Move or Merge This page should either be at geophysical planet or should have all of its information presented on planet. Nasaman58's argument leads me to believe that this page is either a POV fork from planet (possibly because he thought planet was not giving due weight to the geophysical definition) or simply improperly named. I say "improperly named" because Geophysical Planet Definition is about planets as defined by planetary scientists, not about the process of defining planets by geophysics. Either way, this article does not really fit the criteria for deletion since there are 6 references (of varying quality) in the article that could potentially be merged into planet. Rockphed (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The IAU definition of planet has its own page so the geophysical definition should also have its own page. Fdfexoex (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep this article. I strongly disagree with the statement that "This page serves no purpose that is not already covered in Planet." There is disagreement in the planetary science and astronomy communities about the definition of a planet. The IAU voted in 2006 for a particular definition but the vote was split and geoscientists have continued to argue for a different definition than the one the IAU voted for. It is important for readers of Wikipedia to have information about this alternative definition. Planetary scientists have continued using this geophysical definition at odds with the IAU definition. It is not a fringe definition but is actually mainstream among a large segment of the planetary science community and is the historic definition that has existed since Galileo. The modern uses of this geophysical definition are in published papers in science journals. There was a recent paper arguing that the IAU definition was based upon arguments that are now shown to be historically incorrect in the scientific literature (Metzger, Philip T., Mark V. Sykes, Alan Stern, and Kirby Runyon. "The reclassification of asteroids from planets to non-planets." Icarus 319 (2019): 21-32.). A recent debate occurred between a leading planetary scientist and the astronomer who was president of the IAU leading up to its vote, and the IAU past president stated that planetary scientists could developed other definitions than the one the IAU created (https://vimeo.com/333420664). This is that alternative definition, but it is not new because it is the prevailing definition that existed historically and is still the only once consistent with scientific usage among geoscientists. Therefore it is important for readers of Wikipedia to know about it. There is also, already, a Wikipedia article on the IAU definition of planet which is separate from the article on Planet, and therefore it is important for readers of Wikipedia to have access to information about the definition of Planet that planetary scientists are using and debating about in contrast to this IAU definition. This is especially important since the geophysical definition is the historic definition that has been used since Galileo. Galileo effectively replaced the previous dynamical definition that existed since pre-scientific times. The discussions about definitions is a taxonomical matter that is distinct from the content of the Planet article, because that article is dealing with planets themselves as objects, not with taxonomy. Taxonomy of planets is a different thing than planets themselves. This is exactly why the IAU definition of planet article exists in addition to the Planet article, because the definition is a taxonomical question and that is a thing distinct from the planets themselves. However, including just the IAU definition in this taxonomical information is incomplete because it leaves out the historic and still prominent geophysical definition as a taxonomical system, and this omission does not serve the readers of Wikipedia.Sanddune777 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Do not merge into Definition of planet unless IAU definition of planet is also merged. It is notable because there are recent news articles and scientific papers on it. Instead, this article should be kept separate and expanded because there is a large amount of material that should be added including the wealth of references both historic and recent. I will begin adding this material immediately, so please hold judgement until you see this material. A paragraph should be added to Definition of planet with a link to this as the main article. This is exactly how IAU definition of planet was handled, as a separate article with a paragraph in Definition of planet and a link back to the main article. Including all the new material in Definition of planet would overwhelm it, exactly as including all the material from IAU definition of planet would have overwhelmed it.Sanddune777 (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The Geophysical Planet Definition page should not be deleted, as it does NOT serve the same function as the IAU planet definition page. The IAU planet definition page presents just one view of an ongoing debate regarding definition of the word planet. The IAU planet definition was adopted by just four percent of its members, most of whom are not planetary scientists, and was rejected by an equal number of planetary scientists in a formal petition. Unfortunately, the mainstream media reported only the IAU decision and completely ignored the strong scientific opposition to it in the planetary science community. This one-sided reporting is a genuine disservice to the public. The reality is there is no consensus among the broader scientific community as to how to define the term planet, and many planetary scientists rightfully object to the notion of science being done by decree of "authority."


 * Many planetary scientists see the IAU definition as flawed for numerous reasons, primarily the fact that it gives primacy to an object's location over its intrinsic properties. The New Horizons mission found active geological and atmospheric planetary processes on Pluto that are very similar to those that occur on Earth and Mars. Yet the IAU definition ignores this data and defines Pluto and other dwarf planets solely by their location. It also controversially claims dwarf planets are not planets at all, which runs contrary to the intent of the scientist who initially coined the term, Alan Stern, and is not borne out by the New Horizons findings. Planetary scientists who prefer the geophysical planet definition hold that dwarf planets are a subclass of planets, just as dwarf stars are a subclass of stars, and dwarf galaxies are a subclass of galaxies.


 * Keeping this page rather than folding it into a general planet definition page will provide awareness to readers that there is more than one legitimate, scientific planet definition in use by scientists today. It is an important step toward providing fair and balanced coverage of this ongoing debate.Princesslaurel (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note - I will admit that despite preliminary research, did not realize that there are apparently 'dueling' definitions, to a certain extent, or that there was an article for the IAU definition. I really thought this was just definition page. Based upon what I have been told, the page should be kept and moved to Geophysical planet definition and otherwise I have no prejudice against keeping this article. I'm essentially withdrawing but since there is discussion I'll let someone uninvolved close. Plus, I always break things when I close AfDs. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  13:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE. Basically someone is campaigning.  Admittedly, there are many people unhappy about the IAU (change of) definition, but the "geophysical" one is worse (how many planets, did you say?).  You were right to question the article and I hope that if it stays that it is appropriately caveated and not presented as some sort of equally-valid-alternative to the eight-planet version.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with having many objects qualifying as planets just as there is nothing wrong with having many objects that are stars (100s of billions) or galaxies (also 100s of billions). Because professional planetary scientists use this definition, it is more valid than the IAU definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:146:300:1A80:91A6:2719:59EC:2325 (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggested merging this article into a section of planet (and rewriting planet to be less focused on the IAU definition). Having looked at IAU planet definition, it is more about the controversy and process by which the IAU arrived at a definition for planets than about planets as defined by the IAU.  We could possibly build a similar article to the one on the IAU definition, but I don't think that the geophysicists have had nearly as much controversy as the astronomers. Rockphed (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Princesslaurel and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Discussions of merging and/or balanced coverage should not be had here at AFD but on the article's talk page.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Move or Merge While many planetary scientists do use this definition, the article is simply a talking point of Alan Stern's inability to let go of his ego and grasp that his mission did not go to a planet by IAU's 2006 definition. He has been battling the definition ever since, trying various propaganda. The information in this article is useful in that it is a definition geophysicists use when studying planets (including calling moons planets, as they are identical in many cases; e.g.some Jovian and Saturnian moons are larger than Mercury), but can be instead added to the articles planet and Clearing_the_neighbourhood. 73.15.7.104 (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2019 (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.