Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-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   redirect to gas giant.  Sandstein  18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Super-Jupiter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The term "Super-Jupiter" as applying to a gas giant more massive than Jupiter is not in widespread use either within the scientific community or within the popular media. It is therefore unencyclopedic and should be deleted.J. Langton (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The one article cited did not use the expression. I was happy to learn something about them and am especially pleased to learn that "Super-Jupiter" is not a rap artist, as I thought when I first noticed the AfD. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - the image description page is completely different from this article's image caption --T-rex 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Google agrees. MediaMob (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to gas giant, as it does have some usage.    70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm ambivalent; I see indications this isn't a complete open-and-shut case. We have a Category:Super-Jupiters, which rather strongly implies there are other Wikipedians who feel Super-Jupiters are encyclopaedic. Also, a few minutes on google does show up references to the term .  Those indications aren't sufficient to prevent deletion (they boil down to WP:WAX and sources I don't consider reliable) but they do imply it would be worth asking an expert. I'll tag the article for expert attention accordingly.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The category should be deleted, as being more massive than Jupiter is an arbitrary and non-defining characteristic. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to gas giant: it seems the extrasolar planets articles are dominated by a group of highly active editors who seem to insist on imposing categorisation systems on objects whose basic properties are for the most part totally unknown. Deleting this article would only serve to open the door for the next round of sci-fi style exoplanet categorisation systems when someone finds their favourite mass classification is missing. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to gas giant would probably be a good idea. I have no preference between redirection and deletion. J. Langton (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect&mdash;The term does get some use in the scientific literature, per 63 scholar ghits. But a redirect to gas giant should be sufficient.&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of comparison: exoplanet gets 7500, "super-Earth" has close to 5000, "extrasolar planet" has 3000, etc. Not that I'm disagreeing, I just think that 63 scholar ghits should be put in perspective. J. Langton (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not appear to be a significant term based on Google search. --Voidvector (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to gas giant. WilliamKF (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the consensus is redirect to gas giant. Anyone have objections to this? J. Langton (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2008 (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.