Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planck star


 * 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 (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Planck star

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

should be merged with the article for black holes or redirected. Jab843 (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I am very uncomfortable with PRODing or AfD nominating articles that have barely seen the light of day. This article is less than 24 hrs old. Is there some urgent reason a note could not have been dropped to the creator suggesting some improvements were needed before going for the jugular? -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Abstain As the creator of this article, I had seen articles on several science sites about this theory, but there was no wikipedia page. So I created a stub about it, with only basic information, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable than I would expand it if it is a valid theory. It's too early to tell whether this will become mainstream science of fizzle out, and I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to know whether this article is notable, so I'll leave the decision to others. Q6637p (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Q6637p. Can I suggest you drop a line to the guys over at WP:AST. They might be able to give some help with it. And if it's not notable they can probably let you know that as well. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to black hole, with no prejudice against recreation in the future if the subject becomes notable in the future. Per WP:FRINGE, although this seems a valid theory (have not read the paper), it is only one scientific paper, with some passing coverage. New scientific theories are common in physics, and each new one does not deserve a wikipedia entry. Martin 4 5 1  08:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to black hole, per Martin451. Howver, I think it's a fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2014 (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.