Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planemo


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Planemo
Neologism. Okay, it may be a neologism created by a scientiest, but it's still a neologism. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I appreciate that most neologisms aren't suitable for wikipedia. But this is a term that has been formally proposed and may well be implemented by the IAU due to the current debate and controversy over the definition of planet, an important ongoing event in the world of astronomy. 130.126.76.27 08:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism and dicdef; if adopted it might be worthy of an article if it can get beyond a dicdef; maybe merge with Planet or Definition of Planet Peyna 04:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could someone explain what a "dicdef" is?
 * That means "dictionary definition". In other words its useful for a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia, and belongs in wiktionary rather than wikipedia. Sorry if shorthand confused you. Zordrac 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep- in the same boat as mesoplanet, which is definitely OK. Reyk 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Until a name is formally adopted its a speculative dic def at best. Probably should also include its partner in the effort, Fusor (astronomy). 24.17.48.241 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs to be explained. Kappa 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is describing the planets that are not really planets! Highly topical scientific debate right now!  .  Hasn't anyone here heard about the so-called 10th planet and the possible re-classification of Pluto?  That's not really just for scientists.  Also, google gives 1,300 hits, but I think for such a topical area the area itself is important to note.  It's about as relevant as talking about the different theories of what a black hole is. Zordrac 07:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, there is no possible reclassification of Pluto in the works. While armchair astronomers like to go on about it, there is no move by the IAU or any other sanctioning body to reconsider Pluto's designation as a planet. And until this term is approved by the IAU, it is nothing more than speculation, so I vote delete for now, and recreate the article at such time as approval is granted. D e nni &#9775;  05:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm afraid you're incorrect. After the TNOs started turning up in the 90s, the IAU set up a working group headed by Alan Stern in 1999 to come up with a definition of a planet but so far it hasnt reached a conclusion. When it does there is certainly a chance Pluto could be reclassified. 130.126.76.27 21:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no interest in the subject but I've heard about this issue. CalJW 10:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete in its present form and include the information (which is not to say merge) in Planet. We can cover the debate and the proposed terminology, but "Planemo" isn't widespread enough to, without acceptance, be sought.  Geogre 17:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge into definition of planet if Mesoplanet goes with it - Planemo gets 719 google hits vs 194 for mesoplanet. Josh Parris 01:53, 29 November 2005 (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.