Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hycean planet

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. Consensus is against keeping this as a separate article. There is also no consensus for merging, but a brief entry in Hypothetical astronomical object could be easily created from available sources if anybody is so inclined. Sandstein 09:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hycean planet[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)

Fsils WP:NEO, based a single paper in The Astrophysical Journal published in August 2021. All pop-sci coverage, such as the other two references in this article, is about the same study. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every scientific paper deserves an article here, even if it makes a transitory splash in the pop-science media. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hypothetical_astronomical_object#Hypothetical_planet_types. Not enough coverage/research for a stand-alone article. There are other "hypothetical planets" which should also be on the merge target but not a stand-alone article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems too early to consider deleting the "Hycean planet" article - would expect the article to be even more worthy - and more useful - when the "James Webb Space Telescope" (or related) is fully deployed - and begins observations and analysis of exoplanets - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is, in itself, a violation of WP:TOOSOON. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - the "Hycean planet" article doesn't seem to be any more of a violation of "WP:TOOSOON" than many other hypothetical exoplanets having standalone articles - and similarly hypothetical exoplanets as far as I can see - including those listed in "Hypothetical astronomical object#Hypothetical planet types", such as => "Blanet", "Carbon planet", "Chthonian planet", "Coreless planet", "Desert planet", "Eyeball planet", "Helium planet", "Iron planet", "Ocean world", "Ploonet", "Superhabitable planet" and others - seems the "Hycean planet" article may be as worthy - if not moreso - than these other standalone articles of hypothetical exoplanets - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We don't judge notability based on sources that might exist in the future, but on those that exist now. And that list of other hypothetical planet types is a textbook example of an argument to avoid. Sometimes pages exist that shouldn't, just because nobody has noticed and taken the time to start a deletion discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough reliable coverage to make the particular neologism notable or to write a detailed article. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 21:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hypothetical_astronomical_object#Hypothetical_planet_types per 力. The references are based on press releases by the authors of academic journal article. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. No evidence of sustained notability yet. PianoDan (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an example of WP:TOOSOON since the concept has just appeared in one scientific paper earlier this year. Could be notable in the future if other research groups follow up and continue to use this term. Aldebarium (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all standalone articles on hypothetical planet types as indicative of current research trends in exoplanetology, which our readers come looking for in this encyclopedia. This is a subject of intense research and has significant secondary source coverage in the popular media that meets our minimum standards for inclusion. WP:NEO does not apply at all, so the argument and rationale for deletion is unjustified. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 12 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.