Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrooceanography (2nd nomination)

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 keep and rename. (non-admin closure) Andyjsmith (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Astrooceanography

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

Neologism failing WP:NEO. No reliable sources given for this term and the only sources I can find on the web are blogs, wikis and other non-reliable sources. It’s just not a term that anyone uses other than casually. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like Andyjsmith, I've searched for information about "Astrooceanography", and found mostly, blogs, wikis, etc, many of them clearly derived from the Wikipedia article. Evidently "Astrooceanography" is not a recognised field under that name. However, there is certainly research relating to oceans on other planets, so is it recognised as a field, but under another name, or is this article merely a synthesis by Wikipedia editors of bits of information from different places into a novel unified concept? My personal feeling is that the article contains significant content on a meaningful topic, and I would like to keep it, under whatever name. However, after the countless times I have told editors that keeping something because one personally likes it, rather than because Wikipedia policy supports keeping it is unacceptable, I can scarcely justify acting contrary to what I have preached to so many others for so long. I therefore have to say Delete unless someone can find reliable sources which treat this as a recognised scientific field in its own right, not a collection of individual examples with no source connecting them together; if anyone can find sources which do that, then it should be keep and rename to whatever name those sources use. JBW (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Planetary oceanography. After posting my message above, I had the brainwave of searching for that title, and found multiple sources. I'll come back and post links to some of them later, but at present I'm editing on my phone, and doing the necessary checking to decide which sources are suitable would be too fiddly. JBW (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don’t think it matters if it’s not a proper field, as long as people are actually ‘’doing’’ planetary oceanography then it’s a thing and we should cover it. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term I see used is "exo-oceanography". Praemonitus (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Exo-oceanography per Praemonitus. Googling it, it seems to be the same concept, and it looks like there's academic or at the very least reliable sources using that term. casualdejekyll (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. and rename as Praemonitus suggests. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the nominator I’m happy to close this early as Keep and Rename. But I get the impression that Planetary oceanography is in wider use than Exo-oceanography and seems to me to be a more natural term. Any thoughts? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a new sub-field so it probably hasn't converged on a particular name yet. We can always change it when one becomes more common. Praemonitus (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point. I'm going to rename it to Planetary oceanography because that's more self explanatory and set up a redirect page at Exo-oceanography. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:49, 25 September 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.