414:. 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:
369:
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
362:
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
329:
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
219:
83:
460:
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
441:
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.
473:
176:
283:
213:
78:
340:
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.
302:
108:
123:
254:), I cannot find any more recent sources or evidence of widespread use in the scientific community; all references are popular science coverage of
387:
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.
149:
144:
153:
103:
96:
17:
494:
450:
402:
382:
357:
313:
294:
275:
63:
136:
423:
485:
using the term in this way, and that describes the research that spawned the press release that all the sources are based on.
234:
201:
117:
113:
511:
40:
180:
342:
There is no doubt the pop media sources discuss the term and concept in detail, so I think NEO is a non-issue here.
398:
374:
353:
267:
195:
446:
191:
490:
140:
507:
482:
469:
36:
241:
388:
343:
132:
69:
255:
227:
326:
442:
250:
Although this article is much more developed than the version deleted in 2021 (so ineligible for
486:
306:
287:
92:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
506:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
207:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
465:
370:
when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.
335:
331:
262:
259:
251:
364:
170:
461:
54:
502:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
424:"Tread lightly: 'Eggshell planets' possible around other stars"
166:
162:
158:
226:
84:
Articles for deletion/Eggshell planet (2nd nomination)
426:(Press release). Washington University in St. Louis
240:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
514:). No further edits should be made to this page.
301:Note: This discussion has been included in the
282:Note: This discussion has been included in the
284:list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions
8:
334:- both GNG and NASTRO accept pop media. Per
303:list of Science-related deletion discussions
124:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
300:
281:
76:
368:
339:
258:. As such, this still appears to be a
79:Articles for deletion/Eggshell planet
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
422:Ogliore, Talia (November 10, 2021).
24:
109:Introduction to deletion process
363:independent of each other: per
1:
495:10:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
481:. Google scholar only finds
403:00:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
64:22:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
474:17:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
451:09:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
383:14:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
358:05:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
314:23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
295:23:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
276:23:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
99:(AfD)? Read these primers!
531:
504:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
75:AfDs for this article:
181:edits since nomination
97:Articles for deletion
316:
297:
114:Guide to deletion
104:How to contribute
522:
435:
433:
431:
395:
393:
378:
350:
348:
311:
292:
271:
245:
244:
230:
174:
156:
94:
62:
34:
530:
529:
525:
524:
523:
521:
520:
519:
518:
512:deletion review
429:
427:
421:
391:
389:
381:
376:
346:
344:
307:
288:
274:
269:
187:
147:
133:Eggshell planet
131:
128:
91:
88:
73:
70:Eggshell planet
53:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
528:
526:
517:
516:
498:
497:
476:
454:
453:
439:
438:
437:
416:
415:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
373:
317:
298:
266:
256:a single paper
248:
247:
184:
127:
126:
121:
111:
106:
89:
87:
86:
81:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
527:
515:
513:
509:
505:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
455:
452:
448:
444:
443:StarryGrandma
440:
425:
420:
419:
418:
417:
413:
410:
404:
400:
396:
386:
385:
384:
380:
379:
371:
366:
361:
360:
359:
355:
351:
341:
337:
333:
328:
324:
321:
318:
315:
312:
310:
304:
299:
296:
293:
291:
285:
280:
279:
278:
277:
273:
272:
264:
261:
257:
253:
243:
239:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
193:
190:
189:Find sources:
185:
182:
178:
172:
168:
164:
160:
155:
151:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
129:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
101:
100:
98:
93:
85:
82:
80:
77:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
503:
501:
487:Phil Bridger
478:
457:
428:. Retrieved
411:
375:
322:
319:
309:CAPTAIN RAJU
308:
290:CAPTAIN RAJU
289:
268:
249:
237:
231:
223:
216:
210:
204:
198:
188:
90:
56:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
260:non-notable
214:free images
466:XOR'easter
430:January 8,
508:talk page
483:one paper
327:WP:NASTRO
325:Although
263:neologism
252:WP:CSD#G4
37:talk page
510:or in a
377:Rational
270:Rational
177:View log
118:glossary
39:or in a
462:churned
323:Comment
220:WP refs
208:scholar
150:protect
145:history
95:New to
479:Delete
458:Delete
412:Delete
392:isvery
347:isvery
336:WP:NEO
332:WP:GNG
192:Google
154:delete
50:delete
390:Darcy
345:Darcy
235:JSTOR
196:books
171:views
163:watch
159:links
16:<
491:talk
470:talk
447:talk
432:2024
399:talk
394:cute
365:WP:N
354:talk
349:cute
320:Keep
228:FENS
202:news
167:logs
141:talk
137:edit
265:. /
242:TWL
175:– (
52:.
493:)
472:)
464:.
449:)
401:)
367:,
356:)
338:,
305:.
286:.
222:)
179:|
169:|
165:|
161:|
157:|
152:|
148:|
143:|
139:|
60:iz
489:(
468:(
445:(
436:.
434:.
397:(
372:/
352:(
246:)
238:·
232:·
224:·
217:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
194:(
186:(
183:)
173:)
135:(
120:)
116:(
57:L
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.