 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
We all want a hot companion celestial body... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.225.112 ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope so, but there's a discussion on the astronomy project page. — Aldaron • T/ C
- According to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_18#Hot_Companion - it is a spurious term. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
After reading over the article & its history, I would lean towards re-nominating this article for deletion. Primarily, the concept "hot companion" is not a well defined astronomical concept. Rather, it's an adjective - noun pairing in the same way "massive companion" or "cold companion" is. Secondly, the source currently being relied upon to establish this definition does not actually define it (instead, the source states that a "hot companion" was in part responsible for a set of observations). A better source that solidly establishes the concept of "hot companion" is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstock ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
All the examples are from the Kepler project. This is highly skewed towards one project. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 06:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's only two examples, presumably the ones best known to the editor who added them. If you believe that makes the article unbalanced, please add more.
TJRC (
talk) 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or we could remove one or both... 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 05:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
We all want a hot companion celestial body... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.225.112 ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope so, but there's a discussion on the astronomy project page. — Aldaron • T/ C
- According to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_18#Hot_Companion - it is a spurious term. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 05:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
After reading over the article & its history, I would lean towards re-nominating this article for deletion. Primarily, the concept "hot companion" is not a well defined astronomical concept. Rather, it's an adjective - noun pairing in the same way "massive companion" or "cold companion" is. Secondly, the source currently being relied upon to establish this definition does not actually define it (instead, the source states that a "hot companion" was in part responsible for a set of observations). A better source that solidly establishes the concept of "hot companion" is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nstock ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
All the examples are from the Kepler project. This is highly skewed towards one project. 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 06:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's only two examples, presumably the ones best known to the editor who added them. If you believe that makes the article unbalanced, please add more.
TJRC (
talk) 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Or we could remove one or both... 65.95.15.144 ( talk) 05:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)