Talk:LkCa 15 b

Debatable claim about first accreting exoplanet

The article claims that LkCa 15b is the first exoplanet seen in the process of active accretion. But a paper that appeared a week or two prior reports that a different protoplanet, HD 100546 b, is in the process of active accretion: http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02526 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.154.255.216 (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The evidence for accretion from LkCa 15b is stronger due to it's high brightness at H Alpha and low brightness in the optical continuum. HD100546 b's evidence for forming planets is a bit more debatable, with an alternate hypothesis of a clump in the spiral density wave being feasible (though probably not preferred based upon all of the data). That being said, I agree with your point. The statement in the nature press release is probably a bit too strong. Martin Cash (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

LkCa 15 b does not exist

This planet does not exist, see (Currie et al., 2019). Renerpho (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge

We usually don't have articles on disproven/refuted exoplanets.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I might be too late here, but we had a similar situation for Fomalhaut b, as well as Neith and Vulcan, so why delete this one too? Just because a [exo]planet is disproven/refuted, doesnt mean we should delete the entire thing, unless its not notable on its own or is not a first of its type (which is not the case for LkCa 15 b). GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Support as both pages are small and readers are best served by having the information in one place because of the context the broader topic provides. Klbrain (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Support per Kepler-1229b and Klbrain. Fomalhaut b is an exceptional case; this isn't. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)