Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheels of Poseidon

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 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wheels of Poseidon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable name for Bioluminescence phenomenon. Very few results on google not derived from wikipedia. Porphyro (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to bioluminescence or Delete. No indication this neologism has spread notably beyond the person who coined it, and a redirect would take those few familiar with the term to the page with information on the subject, but of the Google search results, if you eliminate the Wikipedia mirrors, most of what remain refer to a (non-notable for Wikipedia purposes) folk-metal musical group and not the oceanic phenomenon, so a redirect may not be appropriate. Agricolae (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely a neologism, but I'm not seeing usage in sources to indicate it would be a redirect term people would actually be using as Agricolae mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment It was also used in Clarkes's 1971 novella "A Meeting with Medusa" but apparently just never caught on. I don't have a strong opinion as to whether the redirect is justifiable. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've found enough WP:RS to possibly support a section in Bioluminescence on "phosphorescent wheels", but not this 1967 neologism for it. See this report, this report, this paper, this discussion in Nature, and this, and even this French meto wikilog of sighting , and this report from the US Naval Oceaonagraphic Office and this from the National Institute of Oceanography in Surrey. But I still don't think this particular article merits retention. (I'll pop these refs in the Talk page for Bioluminecence in case someone ever wants to pick up on them.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2018 (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.