Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquapelago

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapelago[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Some papers in Shima (a journal without an article) are trying to make this a topic, but I think it is still a non-notable neologism. The article is more a list of search results than a description of a topic. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it could use some cleanup, the topic in terms of notability is fine. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a term that has only gained coverage in a single non-notable academic journal is a clear fail of WP:NEO. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have made a clean-up on the article following quality standards, including, but not limited to, appropriate references to academic journals and removing the references' names from the body of the text. I must disclose I am a member of the editorial board of Shima and note the journal has reputation among interdisciplinary island studies. The journal is also positioned in some top quartiles among other journals (see Scimago Journal Ranking). Further, it must be noted the term 'aquapelago' has become ingrained in academic research (see Google Scholar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcbcastro (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold with one more round - anyone else able to share their thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:36, 25 December 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.