- 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
S ori 52
- S ori 52 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article makes one claim for notability, but it has no citation and is almost certainly untrue. It was discovered six years after the Keck Telescope began observations and was observed once with that telescope a year after that. I could find no peer-reviewed or secondary publications specific to this object, and only a total of nine papers mentioning including it in tables or listings. Lithopsian ( talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - No source confirming its existence. Meatsgains ( talk) 00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. TNT, specifically. S Ori 52 (the article doesn't even get the capitalization right) is a rogue planet candidate, and gets some discussion in that context. It's included in the table of rogue planet candidates at, fittingly rogue planet (and I'd advocate for a redirect if this title was correct!) -- although I'll note that the entry there is badly incomplete, and the estimated mass doesn't match the sources (the discovery announcement in Science gives a mass estimate of 5-15 MJ; in general, that article is neither well-researched nor well-referenced). I'm not sure whether or not S Ori 52 is independently notable, as most discussions of the object do so in conjunction with other, similar bodies associated with σ Orionis. In any case, what we have here is arguably worse than useless. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:00, 29 September 2016 (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.