Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaeooölogy


 * 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   merge to Oology. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Palaeooölogy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Term does not exist; all Google hits are related to the WP article. The references listed in the article do not use the term. The german article is also proposed for deletion. The German article is meanwhile deleted by speedy deletion. Leftfoot69 (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - no harm, appears to be a real word, if a neologism. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "No harm" is not a valid keep rationale, and neologisms are not something we typically keep around. Resolute 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What dictionary did you find it it? I haven't found it in any dictionaries, yet. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Protologism not actually in use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and with possible Merge/Redirect into Oology if not enough material remains for a standalone article. With some effort, I found sources establishing that this is a real word.  Extremely esoteric?  Yes.  Verifiable?  Yes.   shows JW Hedgpeth's 1957 "Treatise on marine ecology and paleoology", which has been cited by .  Also,  and  (chinese text) both use the term.  Scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals, and there's a work written in detail about the subject.  Also, this source:  as well as this one:  both establish that the Swedish Museum of Natural History actually has a "Department of Palaeooology".  There may not be many sources but they establish without a doubt that it's a real term.  The question of whether or not there is enough coverage to justify a standalone article, however, is still open in my mind (without being able to get my hands on that main source).  Cazort (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've bad news for you. The purported "Treatise on marine ecology and paleoology" is actually a mis-spelling, in a citation by an author whose first language isn't English, of "Treatise on marine ecology and paleontology".  Put that into Google Scholar and you'll find all of the people citing it under its correctly spelled name. And those people at the Swedish Musem of Natural History work at its Department of Palaeozoology.  Not only is this clearly stated in the abstracts that you pointed to, but here's the Palaeozoology Department's own staff listing, listing them. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out.  You have definitely convinced me to recommend a Delete or Merge.  Cazort (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Aside from from Google hits without the word Wikipedia (there are 29, some of which still come from Wikipedia), the older instances might be misreads of the word Palaeozoölogy during the digitization process. Palaeoology with two os might be something else. Fails WP:V Abductive (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cazort's work and my own Google Scholar search show this is a legitimate term that is in use. Lady  of  Shalott  01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've probably made the same mistake that Cazort has made. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected for the two instances you list above . While it is not a WP:RS, there is a professional yahoo group: "Palaeoology · The Palaeo-oological Discussion Group". An actual reliable source that uses the term is . (As it is discussing a Miocene egg, this is not a typo or poor English instance.) I'm changing my vote to merge to oology. Lady  of  Shalott  02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more than two. It's four out of the six citations.  Here's the fifth:  Cazort points to an article co-authored by Professor Erik Flügel.  Its abstract clearly states, however, that he works at the Institut für Paläontologie der Universität.  This is the Palaeontology Institute in the University of Würzburg.  And the article itself talks about paleoecology. I agree about Blas &amp; Patnaik.  All that they do, though, is use the word, and checking the context does hint that it is a nonce coinage on their parts.  For example, on page 3 they talk about "Standard palaeooölogical methods suggested by Carpenter (1999)".  The actual Carpenter citation, however, is "How to study a fossil egg", chapter 8 of Kenneth Carpenter's Eggs, nests, and baby dinosaurs (ISBN 9780253334978).  It doesn't give this name (or, as far as I can tell, any name) to "the study of dinosaur eggs".  Uncle G (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 5 books from the 1950's that use the word. Modern search engines might not be too relevant for this topic. (Disclosure: I recently edited the article, and I'm fighting its deletion also on de-wp) --Pgallert (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you have run into the same problem I ran into...that these are scanning errors of the word "Paleozoology"--it's the same Hedgpeth reference. Cazort (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP, Joel Hedgpeth was an expert on the marine arthropods known as sea spiders (Pycnogonida), and on the seashore plant and animal life of southern California, not dinosaurs. Leftfoot69 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right with the Hedgpeth book, now only LadyofShalott's examples are left. Changing my vote to merge to oology. --Pgallert (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G's rationale. There seems to be a very legitimate question as to whether this word even exists. Resolute 16:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * &hellip; moreover, the people who study the subject don't call it this. To them, this is simply palaeontology.  John R. Horner in the foreword to Dinosaur Eggs and Babies (ISBN 9780521567237) calls this field simply vertebrate paleontology.  (Karl F. Hirsch, one of the foremost experts in the field, was a geologist, not a "paleaooölogist", by the way.)  There's plenty of material for expanding our article on dinosaur eggs threefold.  But there's no formal field of study specific to them by this or any similar name.  Wikipedia policy tells us to trust the likes of M. Horner to know what their own field of study is. Uncle G (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At least some of them do, given the Yahoo group I mentioned above. (This is not something anyone can join either; it specifies that it is for people working in the field.) Of course, it is paleontology - it is a subfield thereof. Lady  of  Shalott  20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * delete, never heart this word--Martin Se (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTKNOWIT - That's a prime example of arguments to avoid. Lady  of  Shalott  20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it has been amply demonstrated that this word is a protoneologism, any and all earlier instances are scanning errors, and in any case it is assignable to paleontology, not oology. It is not sufficient reason to save this word, nor should it be saved because it has three o's in a row. Abductive (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It belongs to both paleontology and oology - it is the subfield at the intersection of the two disciplines. I never said anything about the three o's - so why are you acting a wiseass about that? (And I had changed my vote to merge and redirect days ago.) Lady  of  Shalott  21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oology is not an academic discipline; currently only the Smithsonian has a Dept of Oology. The study of eggs while they are alive (or recently dead) uses very different methods than the study of fossil eggs, which uses standard paleontological methods. Abductive (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You could have disclosed that you are the sysop on de-wp that has executed the speedy deletion, against some of the CSD rules, and with pretty much the same argument. --Pgallert (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.