Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleoscience


 * 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. Courcelles 23:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Paleoscience

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and a bit of OR as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, although current article is poor there are sources out there for this topic that satisfy WP:NOTE. Whilst it's true that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article has the potential to be expanded into something worthwhile. Yunshui (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, Most words are in a dictionary. But I think a good article should be possible on this topic. Needs development. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment the wiktionary content is different from the dictionary definition provided in the article. palaeoscience 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nomination. Unlike Yunshui, I cannot forsee this article becoming anything more than a dictionary entry. The material would be best added to the Wiktionary entry, and the current article deleted or redirected to Wiktionary. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nomination. Mention in wiktionary is more than enough. --Rádiológ (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - while there are some scholarly articles, I could find no news articles on point (one was a 404 error), and few textbook references. I'm not saying the can't be re-created, but right now it's a neologism. See also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Quite expandable. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep Do not understand the argument that it is a neologism; it may not have a lot of relevant Google Scholar hits, but that's because it is a catch-all term, and most papers would state their specific area such as paleoclimatology, paleozoology, etc. It is recognized as an area of study by the American Geophysical Union, (source), which is essentially the authority for geosciences. There is nothing here that says it can't be expanded. - Running On Brains (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - The current article is dreadful, and reads exactly like a dictionary definition. The topic certainly is notable, and an article on paleoscience which  acts as an overview of the area with a synopsis of the various disciplines would be a good addition to Wikipedia.  However, this article isn't it and would need a complete ground-up rewrite. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (or alternatively turn into a disambiguation page). No indication that 'paleoscience' is "address[ed] directly in detail" by any reliable source, as opposed to simply mentioned in passing as a useful (if neologistic) collective term for various scientific fields. It therefore seems unlikely that this article will grow beyond a WP:DICTDEF without extensive WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DeleteNot a commonly enough used concept and would likely need WP:OR to make it article worthy. Maybe if the phrasing becomes more used over time.  N o f o rmation  Talk  09:29, 16 July 2011 (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.