Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astromathematics


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Astromathematics

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable neologism. The only source in the article is a press release (hi, ScienceDaily, thanks for contributing nothing to the world) that doesn't contain "astromathematics", and a literature search turns up insufficient evidence that the term is actually used. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: this just seems like a dictionary definition. Praemonitus (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This does seem to be a neologism, but one coined in the 1990s by notable astronomer Edward Spiegel: . It doesn't seem to have caught on, though. Other Google Scholar hits are haphazard and appear disconnected. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO PianoDan (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: A brief search didn't really turn up any viable redirect alternatives for me. The closest thing is probably Mathematical physics or Physical mathematics, but they're probably not close enough for WP:RPURPOSE. — MarkH21talk 09:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The closest equivalent that actually IS a commonly used term is Celestial Mechanics. However, "astromathematics" isn't used enough for even a redirect to be warranted. PianoDan (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence that this is notable. Aldebarium (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable neologism. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Not Neologism. Just needs more information to be added on. Has been used before in research papers and used by academics in the field. It is a form of mathematics that includes geometry, trigonometry, linear algebra etc that specially used to describe the universe. Such as space time, the example used in the article. Most neologism on here are non-serious expressions where deletion is valid, however, this specific case is about a term that has been used by academics and may be relevant in the future. It is similar to other sub fields that are emerging or are not so widespread, such as: geo-biology, Astro-biology and geo-mathematics. Example of use of term in references below RuppaZakir (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to add. There are some courses called ‘Astro-Mathematics.’ These are for physicists and mathematicians that want to learn more about the universe and take specific maths courses that relate to studies of the universe. This is a term that has been used before, and includes advanced studies of mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs) 16:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That abstract is borderline incomprehensible word salad. It's ostensibly the abstract for a talk given at a conference, with no indication of peer review, and I can't find much evidence that the conference itself is reputable, or even actually happened. I fell down a rabbit hole of incomprehensible web pages trying to understand who this person actually is or their area of expertise, and it didn't lead anywhere clear. I don't think it supports notability. PianoDan (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I found that abstract while I was searching for possible sources before I nominated the page for deletion. It's word salad that contributes nothing of significance. (And ResearchGate provides no peer review.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hunting down that rabbit hole gets even weirder - the author of the cited abstract claims, on their webpage, to have INVENTED the field of astromathematics, along with no fewer than ten OTHER branches of mathematics. Did you know he invented astro-anthrodynamics? Honestly, I think that reference actively makes the term LESS notable, by virtue of being so obviously WP:FRINGE. PianoDan (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable neologism. I agree with 's assessment of the abstract and its author. (Also, technically, isn't all mathematics "used to study the universe"? ) -- Kinu t/c 07:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Wiktionary already recognises Astro-mathematics as a term. This definition has been there for a lot longer than the article. This article aims to expand on that definition already given by wiktionary. RuppaZakir (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One !vote per editor, please. Also, existence on Wiktionary does not imply notability, as it is user-created and not considered a reliable source. -- Kinu t/c 14:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe it would be better to keep the article as a reference point for that definition where people can read more about the subject, more information will be added onto this article, especially ideas about linear algebra and geometry that are unique to the universe. Not all maths is used to study the universe, there is a certain part of mathematics that is very interesting for astrophysicists and mathematicians, respectively, to explore, this is called ‘Astro-mathematics’ however, yes, it is correct that this term is not widely used, however, it has been around long enough to not be considered neologism. There are some courses called Astro-mathematics in colleges and not many people know exactly what that field is, this article (with a bit more content added on) can be a reference point for people and also encourage people to approach mathematics in a different way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of Wikipedia is not to be a reference point for definitions, or to encourage people to approach mathematics in a different way. Wikipedia provides encyclopedic coverage of material that has sufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources.  WP:NEO lays out what would be needed for this to clear that bar, and without those sources, it doesn't. PianoDan (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Not only is it used as a reference point by many people but it is also used to discover new and obscure knowledge. Astro-Mathematics may not be used as much as a term itself, however, it is completely different from physical mathematics or mathematical physics, it is a specific study of mathematics, just like Astro-Biology (which is actually an article on Wikipedia) in fact Astro-Mathematics is much more of a clear field than Astro biology which intend to study extraterrestrial life, if that article is allowed on Wikipedia then Astro-Mathematics (a much clearer and established field) should also be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs)
 * Absolutely nothing has indicated that "astro-mathematics" is clearly defined or an established field. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Astrobiology article has no fewer than 188 references. 188! That's a lot! They are from reliable sources and they establish the notability of the term.  The astromathematics article, by contrast, has ONE reference, which does not actually use the term "astromathematics" anywhere in the article.  That is the difference here.  There are no references establishing the notability of the term, and that's why we're arguing for deletion. PianoDan (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment There are major universities that have research centers in astrobiology and some even offer degrees in astrobiology. That is not the case for astromathematics: it is just not notable as a subject area. Aldebarium (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Astro-Mathematics may not be used as much as a term itself" is precisely why this article should be deleted. -- Kinu t/<i style="color:red">c</i> 23:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Just for reference, 34,067 academic papers published on Academia.Edu alone have the term Astro-Mathematics in them. These are by established scientists in their fields. Astro-Mathematics is a term used by a lot of academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Academia.edu doesn't publish papers. It's a social-networking site with no peer-review procedures. Papers hosted there can be complete garbage. Searching for the exact phrase "astro-mathematics" returns only eleven hits there, none of which are actually useful. My guess is that you are using a free account that shows only the number of hits, not their actual content, and that you are finding papers that contain both "astro" and "mathematics" separately. Not a single source in the article now meets our basic standards for writing about scientific topics. Wikis are not reliable. Press releases are not reliable. Conference proceedings in physics are not reliable. "Astro-mathematics" is not a subject. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment That’s the point, Astro-mathematics is used in astrophysics and mathematics, however, it is specific to the study of the universe. If this is not favoured on Wikipedia then you can delete this article or rename it to something different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuppaZakir (talk • contribs) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Please stop adding comments after the ref list. Moved. (again) PianoDan (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.