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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Eggshell planet

Eggshell planet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Although this article is much more developed than the version deleted in 2021 (so ineligible for WP:CSD#G4), I cannot find any more recent sources or evidence of widespread use in the scientific community; all references are popular science coverage of a single paper. As such, this still appears to be a non-notable neologism. ^Complex/ _Rational 23:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Keep Comment Although WP:NASTRO does not explicitly apply here, it states that popular media can be used as reliable sources to meet notability for astronomical objects. I believe the same principle also applies here, meaning the pop media is sufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GNG - both GNG and NASTRO accept pop media. Per WP:NEO, To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. There is no doubt the pop media sources discuss the term and concept in detail, so I think NEO is a non-issue here. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 05:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Indeed, there's nothing inherently wrong with popular science sources. The concern here is that they all report almost exactly the same thing around the same time and are based on the university press release. Even though some of these sources are independent of the subject, they are not really independent of each other: per WP:N, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. ^Complex/ _Rational 14:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thank you for the explanation. Looking at the pop media sources again, I'm inclined to agree with your reasoning, so I will retract my !vote. Darcyisverycute ( talk) 00:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Whether the article is titled "Eggshell planet" or "Very thin lithosphere planet" it is too soon to have an article on this scientific topic. This is work by a single research group. Their paper, a model calculation arguing such planets are theoretically possible rather than a discovery, is a primary source. Wait until there are secondary sources in peer-reviewed journals. The press coverage is all based on the press release put out by the university:

Ogliore, Talia (November 10, 2021). "Tread lightly: 'Eggshell planets' possible around other stars" (Press release). Washington University in St. Louis. Retrieved January 8, 2024..

Universities love to do such press releases. All the sources in the current article are either from the authors of the original paper or date from the publication of that press release. StarryGrandma ( talk) 09:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delete without prejudice against a later recreation if and when this becomes an actual, established scientific term rather than a concept from one research group that managed to get their press release churned. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Google scholar only finds one paper using the term in this way, and that describes the research that spawned the press release that all the sources are based on. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:56, 13 January 2024 (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.