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. Daniel (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEO: While there may be a notable topic being described here (possibly the same as Dark-energy star), there is no significant usage of the term independent of K. S. Croker (Kcroker (talk·contribs)) aside from churnalism-type coverage. Possible WP:SYNTH issues as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Forgot to mention that there are concerns across the respective talk pages that Dark-energy star, Gravastar, and Generic object of dark energy are confusingly similar to each other. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The "Generic object of dark energy" article seems very well sourced with WP:RS at "Generic object of dark energy#References" - and also - well discussed on the related talk-page at "Talk:Generic object of dark energy" - Comments Welcome from other eitors of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Four hits in Google Scholar. Three of them are Croker. Only one of the four even mentions Gliner. Impossible to search for "GEODE", for obvious reasons, but a search for "GEODE, gliner" returns only 6 hits. I find it extremely suspicious that the article claims that these things were hypothosised in 1966 when dark energy itself only became a topic in the 1980s. Are these topics really linked? Surely Gliner did not propose them under this name? Anyway, the notability seems to be missing. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DanielRigal (talk·contribs) Drbogdan (talk·contribs) Gliner did not use the term GEODE, he just demonstrated that such things could and very likely should exist. See [1] and discussion therein. Again, I take no position since I am maximally COI here. What I will say is that the GEODE page, as it stands now, is, well, awful. You can see my original comments in the Talk page. I could re-write it so that it is factually correct, and thoroughly referenced, but again our team originated the "catch all" name GEODE, so I felt it was inappropriate that I act in that role. Statements like, "As of now, they remain speculative with no supporting evidence" is not correct at all. The same could be said about minimal supersymmetric models, but there has been an industry working on that for over 50 years, so that particular breed of "speculative with no supporting evidence" is *extremely* notable.
The fact is, the community has not yet paid any attention to our base ApJ papers. The acronym, though it refers to diverse works since the late 1960, has not caught on. If notability/popularity is what determines wikipedia presence, I must agree that the acronym GEODE is not notable.
Concerning related pages, Dark Energy Star (Chapline, et al.) Gravatstar (Mottola, et al.) are examples GEODEs. Again, we created the acronym to try to build some cohesion in the literature between all the existing implementations. We have clearly failed. >_<
Kcroker (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be pushing the use of terminology that has yet to be accepted. We're here to follow the scientific community, not to lead it. Nor should our articles be based on churnalism. References 3, 4, and 8 are the same press release, and it looks like the dead link reference 15 was another copy of it. (Reference 8 is listed as being from Science magazine, but it's not — it's a random website called scienmag.com.) Reference 5 is a lightly rewritten copy of the same press release. References 9 (Live Science) and 17 (Phys.org) look like journalism but aren't; they fail to even quote an opinion from anyone not involved in the research. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's a portfolio for content-scrapers. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the page is not just based on a press release, it's copied from that press release [2]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it very definitely is a problem. In fact, all of the endnotes appear to have been copied directly from sources (of varying reliability) without any indication that they were quotations. That would be an automatic fail for any school writing assignment, and it's not something we should countenance here. Likewise, the article says Such GEODEs appear to be black holes when viewed from afar but, different from black holes, these objects contain dark energy instead of a gravitational singularity, while a press release says, These appear to be black holes when viewed from the outside but, unlike black holes, they contain Dark Energy instead of a singularity. That's so little modified that it doesn't even count as a paraphrase. XOR'easter (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LaundryPizza03, since it was edited by multiple users, I'm not sure a G12 would go through. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see anything in the content that falls foul of Wikipedia guidelines. The objection seems to be to the name. It can be renamed to Dark Energy Objects. J mareeswaran (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Relies almost exclusively on primary sources and press releases. The concept was proposed as an umbrella term for several disparate objects, but clearly didn't catch on. Also, the article is in a terrible state, it's an incoherent mess, and has copyvios. Tercer (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be used to advertise O(1)-cited papers... Sources are insufficient and don't show notability. In Wikipedia one should report on a reputation already built in the literature. This reputation does not emerge from the page. --SimoneD89 (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept itself does not appear to be notable, demonstrated by very low citation counts (as of yet) for the primary articles, and the term is not in widespread or general use in the scientific literature. At present, the GEODE concept should not have its own article, but it could merit a very brief mention in the dark-energy star article instead. Aldebarium (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete per XO'easter, Tercer, SimoneD89, Aldebarium. To which I can add: we've deleted articles on far more notable topics, with far larger bodies of work behind them, for not being notable enough. The problem here is that the article, as written is incoherent techno-babble. For example, the intro says "GEODEs ... contain dark energy" which reads like nonsense, since dark energy is, by definition, the pressure term in the stress energy tensor, so its not something that is "containable". The "examples" section lists four unrelated things that are "examples of GEODEs" without in any way mentioning how they might "contain" dark energy, or how they would contribute a pressure term to the cosmological (general relativistic) field equations. Later sections seem to imply that they are repulsive, and yet they attract ordinary matter .. where's this repulsive force coming from? What field carries it? So, sorry, the article, as written, is technobabble. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.