Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outer-grazer

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outer-grazer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It would appear to me that the reason this article (and

WP:NOTNEO test for neologisms applies here, and in 2023 that test is not passed. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Draftify For improving with references Christopheronthemove (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The phrase is defined in James Hall's Moons of the Solar System: From Giant Ganymede to Dainty Dactyl and it does come up on a lot of WP articles about orbits - but I agree, it's all (apart from that one book) WP-sourced - citogenesis? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comments of Shirt58 and Alexandermcnabb. I also note that the term "grazer" can be highly inaccurate if not actually misleading as, for example, an object with a high-inclination orbit might not "graze" any other orbiting body (we're not talking about sungrazing comets here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2023 (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.