Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodwarf planet

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exodwarf planet

edit
Exodwarf planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. Invented on a blog, once used on another blog. Captain Hindsight (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete To be fair, it does get a mention in course lecture notes at the University of Oklahoma. No hits on google scholar, though, so I suspect we have a neologism coined by one or two researchers in the field. Maybe it'll become a mainstream term in a couple of years - but for the moment there are no peer-reviewed publications which makes it non-notable. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I am not a researcher. I have complied with the former sign. I posted the below on the page:"I showed that Dr. David Jeffrey uses the term exodwarf planet. I could rename the article Extrasolar Dwarf Planet and it would mean the same thing and that word is used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12_D without a problem. I have stated all this in my undoing of the revisions and yet revisioner violated Wikipedia rules by continually putting up the former sign and making the same charge that exodwarf is a new word being coined here.

    The previous sign said it could be removed if I showed the source and said so in my revision or on a Talk Page which I did and still the sign was put up with the same charge, thus violating Wikipedia rules. The sign also said that after seven days of being up it can be removed. Therefore the dispute since it has not changed in content can be over in seven days starting from one minute past the time this message is posted and the below sign will therefore be removed any time from then."Yisraelasper (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Entries on neolgisms require references about the word, not simply references that use the word. The only candidate so far is a single blog entry. Since the meaning of "exo-" is pretty clear, this is largely redundant to Dwarf planet (and Extrasolar planet). Hairhorn (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete I can change the name to Extrasolar Dwarf Planet. I am not interested in the name. This is an article about a concept. Extrasolar planet and exoplanet mean the same thing."Yisraelasper (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's obvious.... which is why an entry isn't needed, there are already entries on exoplanets and dwarf planets. At the moment, a third entry is redundant. Hairhorn (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you say that what I said is obvious, namely that exo and extrasolar mean the same thing then you are saying that the charge against my article is wrong. Instead you say that there is no need for the article as there are already entries on exoplanets and dwarf planets. What you fail to mention is that there are general articles and then specific ones and yet that is not called redundant especially since there is no general article on exodwarf planets [until I made one there was no entry I mean 14:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)]. Yisraelasper (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the sign Yisraelasper is referring to is a previous proposed deletion (PROD) notification here (and another one here).

    The seven days talked about in that notice refer to the fact that if the notice is not removed in seven days an admin will review it and make a decision whether to delete it or not. It is believed that if no one removes the notice during those seven days then the community generally feels that this article shouldn't exist (see WP:PROD). This is WP:AfD. What's happening here is a discussion about whether the article should exist or not. The discussion usually lasts 7 days and the article shouldn't be deleted during that time. Captain Hindsight feels that feels this article is about a neologism and thus fails WP:NEO. For the article to be kept it's necessary to show that the article doesn't fail that policy. Captain Hindsight was not acting against the rules to nominate this article for deletion here (see WP:DEPROD).

    The problem with the article, as I see it, is that is the *only* reference to the word outside of blogs and the Merriam-Webster equivalent of wiktionary are the course lecture notes the (Dr Jeffrey reference). A search for Extrasolar Dwarf Planet does, indeed, bring up a peer reviewed paper so if the article's kept I'd prefer it was moved to that ___location per published literature. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep and move per KFG - nobody is 'charging' your article. However I don't see how this can be considered notable enough to merit its own article at this time.Given that there is an Extrasolar Dwarf Planet article, if kept it should be moved there and Exodwarf redirected there. Otherwise, should be merged to sections in Exoplanet and/or dwarf planet, and once more peer-reviewed information is available, we can reconsider the need for an independent article. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 19:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • What is the difference? Extrasolar Dwarf Planet and Exodwarf Planet is the same word. It is two ways of saying the exact same thing. You have an astrophysicist Dr. David Jeffrey using the word Exodwarf Planet and you have another astronomer using the term Extrasolar Dwarf Planet. I'm willing to switch the name but it is not going to change the fact that people will use the two terms interchangeably despite whatever you decide. You are going to have the article either with one name or the other. Pick your choice. Yisraelasper (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that the term "Extrasolar Dwarf Planet" is in a peer reviewed publication whereas "Exodwarf planet" (so far) only turns up in one set of lecture notes. The peer reviewed publication will have been vetted by a number of experts in the field which means that a number of experts in the field are happy with the term. Course lecture notes don't (to my knowledge) have to be verified by anyone before being taught. If the page is moved a WP:REDIRECT will be left at Exodwarf planet so there shouldn't be an issue with people failing to find the article on those grounds and if "exodwarf planet" becomes the dominant term it can be moved back there later. All of that said, Nergaal seems to have provided a better solution below. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the correct name is "Dwarf exoplanet". The term is new, like many other astronomical terms. It is not very much in use now, but that is because not many examples are known. Still, it is a valid concept and therefore should exist either as its own article or a section somewhere (NOT in Dwarf planet which is an FA). Nergaal (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment, I think that "extrasolar dwarf planet" deserves a mention in dwarf planet, since there are two instances of it being used in peer reviewed articles, whereas "exodwarf planet" has not been used in a peer reviewed article. In the future, there may be enough information on such objects that an article on extrasolar dwarf planets is merited. At the moment, I do not think it is notable enough that it needs an article of its own, as the majority of the well-referenced information that could be included in the article is discussion of this article. If the result is keep, then I would support move to extrasolar dwarf planet. James McBride (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All peer review does is make sure the science is ok. The words are subject to editors who have the final say. If extrasolar dwarf planet is acceptable as a concept, no peer review in the world is going to ban exodwarf planet. It is outside their mandate. Yisraelasper (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article will exist under whatever name. Yisraelasper (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And in all likelihood, when astronomers write about this in the future, they will use the term that has already appeared in journals rather than the one that appears on a blog. Perhaps you will find 10,600 hits for "extrasolar dwarf planet" vs. 146 hits for "exodwarf planet" more compelling an argument. James McBride (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the real issue whether it is used period? This is English not science. Further if even one scientist has what you value so much a peer reviewed article using the exact wording of exodwarf planet, it means the editors of the article said that it is proper English. There are many words that are not used as often but they are still words that make it to the dictionary. In this case exodwarf planet is a real word by virtue of the fact that extrasolar always is allowed to be replaced by exo. That's English. Once extrasolar dwarf planet became a real word so did exodwarf planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraelasper (talk • contribs) 15:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue that began this was whether "exodwarf planet" was a neologism. Since you have stated that you are using the term to mean "extrasolar dwarf planet" (a term we can actually find in the peer reviewed literature) the discussion has been much more about whether this topic is notable enough to merit its own article or if it is better as a section of another article.
Whether or not exodwarf planet is a 'real word' only becomes an issue if you believe the topic merits its own article. Assuming for one moment that it does, the issue isn't whether the term "exodwarf planet" is used by someone somewhere, it is whether it used by researchers in the field - and as I (and others) have been arguing we really don't have any evidence that it is.
As for extrasolar always being allowed to be replaced by 'exo-', could you find a reference for that please? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Webster's Dictionary the word extra as a prefix means outside and in Webster's Dictionary the prefix exo means outside. If I say exoasteroid do you think I mean anything other than an asteroid outside of our solar syatem? Yisraelasper (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.41.40 (talk) [reply]
Absolutely, the 'exo-' prefix does mean outside, but outside what? It isn't always the solar system. Exoskeleton, exogenous and exothermic all use 'exo-' and have nothing to do with the solar system. Besides which, a dictionary definition of 'exo-' isn't the same as a reference which says that in all circumstances 'exo-' can substitute for extrasolar. In any case, even if you could provide such a reference it doesn't alter the fact that we have no evidence that any researcher in this field uses the term exodwarf planet. I think we're going in circles here. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In astronomy it means outside the solar system when speaking of something that can exist within the solar system. No one questions what some one means if they say exostar or exomoon etc. It doesn't matter what a researcher uses for his or her speech pattern. They are just going according to English established by others who are not astronomers. When they coin a term the acceptance depends on the general public accepting it. Yisraelasper (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Wow. Just wow. The only sources provided are the website of the person promoting this made-up word, and some astronomy-related websites where he has gone around promoting it in the user comments section. This is one of the silliest things I've ever seen. Reyk YO! 12:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to mention the quote from Dr. David Jeffrey where he uses the term exodwarf planet and you eliminated it from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12_D but I put it back in. Dr. David Jeffrey makes mention of that very article to support his statement on "exo-dwarf planets." Yisraelasper (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exodwarf_planet&oldid=1253540655"