Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Class M planet

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.

Class M planet

Class M planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar articles on Star Trek planets and ways of classifying have been deleted before, with fairly clear consensus; see

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment From the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek planet classification discussion: "The only one of these that I would expect to have any currency outside of Star Trek fandom itself is class M (Earthlike). I've seen that invoked occasionally in news items about exoplanets, for example." Artw (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would suggest a merge or redirect to

Circumstellar habitable zone or Planetary_habitability may be alternatives? Artw (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge to
  WP:PLOT,) I think having it as part of an article treating the corresponding real-world concept would be best for the time being. Daranios (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I feel that the concept of the Class M planet is at least as important as devoting a page to every single Star Trek episode. It's an important part of the show. The idea that it's only interesting to people who enjoy Star Trek isn't quite accurate. The page is useful to people who want to learn about the show, such as new fans. I certainly could see the idea that there could be a broader page that includes other classes and perhaps other ways that they rate planets in Star Trek. SnappingTurtle (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  circumstellar habitable zone per Artw and Daranios, which I think is an excellent solution. This is essentially the fictional name for a real-world concept, and thus does not really warrant a separate article. However, as shown by sources like the National Geographic article above, even legitimate sources will use the term. So, redirecting to the appropriate real concept, and adding information explaining the origin of the term "Class M planet" and describing how the term is sometimes used outside of Star Trek would definitely be useful. Rorshacma (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the Scholarlink seems to show that this concept has percolated into areas well outside fiction (e.g., gamification of teaching ecology to students), and I've not seen anyone address this level of spillover into "popular" academic usage for this specific term. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the classification deserves to be treated separately, in its own article, and be kept here. As others have pointed out above, the terminology has entered popular and some sort of scientific usage, which means that it goes beyond the show. On the other hand it is a fictional concept with a very clear fictional background – there's something very odd about including what's predominantly Star Trek terminology (I've glanced at a few books, papers and articles that use it, and academic works typically point out the origins of the classification when they use it) in
  Circumstellar habitable zone. It's also not quite the same thing, according to the definitions I've found: Gretchen Vogel, for example, writing in Science in 1999, defines it as " world with a thick atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen, often close to a stable star and having fertile soil and a pleasant climate" (emphasis mine) – and often isn't always. I've expanded he article somewhat, adding a couple of sources. Defending it on WP:GNG grounds seems relatively easy, and it's far more than just WP:PLOT. /Julle (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Julle. Already well sourced and seems a topic which will likely be expanded shortly. The Star Trek universe is well represented on Wikipedia, and this new page fills a gap in Star Trek location pages that most editors didn't even know was there. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and then redirect to
  notable, and if all we can say is that this term is a term for a real world concept as used in Star Trek, well, that's hardly enough to work with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If a topic meets
  WP:GNC it is notable. This one easily does, as discussed in several comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Wat? What has
  WP:GNC, the difference of a letter between a key policy and niche and impactless WikiProject page is pretty crucial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Per Piotrus and others, to
  circumstellar habitable zone - seems like a good compromise._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No need for a compromise, this stand-alone page meets GNC. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Ideally, this article and its contents (as well as a lot of minor, ancillary in-universe elements not widely discussed outside of Trekkie fandom) should be part of a broader Universe of Star Trek or List of Star Trek planets and moons article, which shockingly do not exist. That said, other editors have made convincing arguments per Wikipedia's guidelines that it is a notable concept, and in the absence of a suitable merge target, there's no compelling reason to delete or redirect this article. Haleth (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, there was a List of Star Trek planets, but it got deleted for non-notability. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek planets (A–B)), etc. It could probably be recreated as one list with only the planets that are reliably sourced because the previous list had everything and the kitchen sink. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as this term has entered popular usage outside of fiction.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested previously. There isn't really enough there for a stand-alone article, and it would make a nice subsection in
  circumstellar habitable zone with some removal of Star Trek content and addition of its use outside of that universe. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Your comment reads like arguments for a Keep without the Keep. By keeping the Star Trek content and continuing to add usages outside that context shows that the term is accepted and notable, and the present stand-alone page is appropriate. For it to be trimmed of Star Trek material and even considered as a good subsection of chz shows, again, that it has the notability as a stand alone to remain. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment is an argument for merging while de-emphasizing the Star Trek content and emphasizing what matters most after the merge: the term's use outside of Star Trek. Simply merging the content as is would not be acceptable because there would be insufficient context for that content to be in

  circumstellar habitable zone. If anyone is arguing to merge the content unchanged, then I'd prefer to delete it entirely. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Any use of the term outside of Star Trek shows its notability in society, and, since it actually is a common term in Star Trek, keeping the stand-alone page remains a much better option than removing all of the Star Trek material and merging it somewhere. That's what I meant. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mildly alarmed about merging. As a long-term star-trek fan, I know how much fan-stuff star-trek fans can produce. Also, because of the genuinely clever way star-trek is written, it sounds convincingly scientific, moving seamlessly from accurate situations (such as circumstellar habitable zones) into pure dilithium-crystal technobabble. If we merge a star-trek page into a real-science page, there is a strong risk that we'll end up with an article that can't decide whether it's science or science-fiction. Elemimele (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and definitely Not Merge per Elemimele's reasoning. The concept of "Class M Planet" is an important concept in the science-fictional world of Star Trek, but does seem to have spread into more general use as a "pleasantly habitable planet". However, as Elemimele has pointed out, the definition of "Class M" doesn't correspond to any more rigorous scientific classification, so it would be unwise to merge into a real-world scientific equivalent page. RomanSpa (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely don't merge to some article discussing actual science. Neutral on whether or not to merge to some other Star Trek related article (lack necessary expertise to know where). Let's not mix science fiction up with science fact. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.