List of most massive exoplanets: However, it is estimated that the most massive exoplanets have a mass of around 13 Jupiter masses (but this is highly uncertain anyway).  Despite this, the article has tens of objects with a mass higher than that.  Many objects (such as GQ Lupi b/C) are often considered to be BDs but sometimes are considered to be planets as well but yet they are still here.  Diamantinasaurus ( talk ) 17:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Sounds like a WP:POVFORK , but it also might have enough notability to last.  I don't know enough about the policies surrounding space in the science community.  However, the nom makes it just sound like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conyo14 ( talk • contribs ) 18:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists .  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 14:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep .  This meets NLIST with a google news search.  I think we could require every entry to have an reliable source declaring it as an exoplanet.  AFAICT, I think the 13 Jupiter cutoff isn't widely agreed upon, so we probably shouldn't strictly require it, though maybe there's a place for distinguishing various cutoffs in the list.  — siro χ o 00:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I'm skeptical of the validity of this list.  For example, HD 162020 b is now known to be a red dwarf.  HIP 5158 c only has a minimum mass, but is listed as if the mass is well known.  CT Cha b could be a brown dwarf or a planet; it's not clear.  I think the list should only include objects that are conclusively known to be exoplanets with a well-bounded mass estimate.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 04:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is effectively just a "list of objects between 10 and 30 Jupiter masses that orbit stars", and there isn't really a better way to make a "list of most massive exoplanets".  Whether an object is considered a planet or a brown dwarf depends on either how it formed (while we can make some reasonable guesses, this isn't conclusively known) or a mass cutoff (the IAU uses 13 Jupiter masses, the NASA Exoplanet Archive uses 30).  Maybe "objects described as planets in the scientific literature"?  Leaning delete .  SevenSpheres ( talk ) 16:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of largest exoplanets .  Owen× ☎ 00:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge as recommended above.  Orientls ( talk ) 06:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as an alternative to closing this discussion as No consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per inherent problems raised by Praemonitus.  It is often not possible to get a precise estimate of a planet's mass.  – Laundry Pizza 03 ( d c̄ ) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect