Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twotino

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 Move; since resonant Trans-Neptunian Object does not exist it cannot be redirected to that; so a move seems logical. Computerjoe's talk 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Twotino

Allegedly an astronomy term, but one that doesn't seem to have a lot of traction. Gogle results showed nothing on the first two pages besides wiki mirrors and linkfarm/textscraping/keyword-spoofing spam sites. All the objects that would have this moniker are redlinks. -M^ask 23:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at whatlinkshere for that page, it's linked in a lot of relevant Wiki article. Unless the creator created the template responsible for it (or added twotinos to its listing), I think this might exist. Too bad User:Worldtraveller is having a break. If I remember correctly, he is our resident space expert. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• One doesn't have to be a space expert. Per the article (q.v.), keep. Uncle G 12:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Sometimes a standard Google search isn't the best bet, especially for academic and scientific topics. If you want to stick with Google, a Google Scholar and a Google Book search both reveal that this is indeed a term that is used in astronomy outside of Wikipedia. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=twotino&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en and http://books.google.com/books?q=twotino&as_brr=0 are example queries. This term is obviously accepted, if not widely used. But it doesn't have to be widely used to deserve a spot in Wikipedia. Derek Balsam 15:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to Trans-Neptunian Object. A search of professional astronomy abstracts on the ADS Abstract Service reveals that the term "twotino" is only used by an E. I. Chiang in three of his first-author paper. A check on the references given by Derek Balsam's searches also turns up nothing but papers by E. I. Chiang. Therefore, I conclude that the term is not in common use within the astronomical community at this time. Moreover, the entry does not add any new information on the topic that could not be covered in the Trans-Neptunian Object category. This should either be deleted or made a redirect. (Cubewano also looks suspicious; the ADS Abstract Service only turns up five abstracts, of which only one is from a refereed scientific journal.) George J. Bendo 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete surely isn't the same thing as a redirect (which I don't argue with). If the right thing is a redirect, well, that's a keep, just with new content in the main article and in Trans-Neptunian Object. The term is noteworthy enough to keep in Wikipedia. E. I. Chang had a number of co-authors, too, who also use the term.Derek Balsam 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite a few non-Chiang papers where the term is used? That would be helpful. George J. Bendo 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I simply meant that Chiang was not the sole author on those papers. His co-authors obviously agree with the content and wording of their own papers, therefore they also agree to the usage of that term. I agree with you that the term is not widely used, see my original comment above. But it is certainly used by other people than Chiang, for example see Maholtra (http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/faculty/malhotra_preprints/04-TPF_Darwin.pdf#search=%22twotino%20-%22in%20astronomy%2C%20a%20twotino%22%20-wikipedia%22) (that is a presentation, not a peer-reviewed paper). Just because it is not widely used does not mean it should be deleted from Wikipedia. The term is notable. There is, as far as I know, no requirement that terms in Wikipedia can't come from papers which are happen to have an author in common. Even non-peer reviewed usages can satisfy the notability requirement. If you think that the term should simply be a redirect, by all means, be bold. But in my opinion a delete would not be proper. Derek Balsam 20:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to resonant TNO. (count as Delete). It appears that the term has not been adopted by other resonance theoreticians (e.g. Malhotra, Nesforny), nor by the most recent and most quoted classification papers (Elliot et al, 2006). We need an article for resonant TNO instead. Eurocommuter 08:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And I should have added that E.I. Chiang co-authored the above mentioned DES survey (Elliot et al 2006). Resonant TNOs are on prominent place there, "Plutinos" are mentioned once, in double quotes! No twotinos. Eurocommuter 09:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, Eugene Chiang has chosen not to use this term in his updated (Aug 2006) and very interesting A Brief History of Trans-Neptunian Space. Eurocommuter 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect. Since the term exists there should be something at Twotino, however since the term doesn't appear to be widely accepted it is probably better to redirect than have an article. Chaos syndrome 21:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to trans-neptunian. There is not enough specific information regarding the characteristics or uniqueness of the twotinos. Whether or not it is a widely accepted term can be discussed within TNO. But since it is just a type of TNO that has a different orbit, a single paragraph in TNO should be enough to cover the existence of and describe what twotinos as well as plutinos. --Exodio 20:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A remark on the good point by Exodio above. Is the orbital resonance the only characteristic? I understand the jury is still out on this. The objects in low- order resonances could have been captured by migrating Neptune (like Pluto-Malhotra). Alternatively, some resonances could prove to have distinctive origin/physical characteristics. Precisely a kind of subject for resonant TNO article.

• Redirect to resonant TNO as per Eurocommuter sounds like the best move. This is a topic that has had a lot of scientific usage, and as a bonus would hopefully incorporate other (less common) resonances. Deuar 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It doesn't make much sense to redirect to a non-existent article. Uncle G 17:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps Merge (not rename) all the "inos" into resonant TNO would be more appropriate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect somewhere. resonant TNO sounds promising. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename to resonant Trans-Neptunian Object 132.205.44.134 02:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect --Peta 05:24, 12 September 2006 (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.