Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodwarf planet
I think the sign Yisraelasper is referring to is a previous |proposed deletion (PROD) notification {{diff|Exodwarf planet|398601661|398595424|here}} (and another one {{diff|Exodwarf planet|398604739|398666825|here}}).  The seven days talked about in that notice refer to the fact that if the notice is not removed in seven days an admin will review it and make a decision whether to delete it or not.  It is believed that if no one removes the notice during those seven days then the community generally feels that this article shouldn't exist (see ).  This is fD.  What's happening here is a discussion about whether the article should exist or not.  The discussion usually lasts 7 days and the article shouldn't be deleted during that time.  Captain Hindsight feels that feels this article is about a neologism and thus fails .  For the article to be kept it's necessary to show that the article doesn't fail that policy.  Captain Hindsight was not acting against the rules to nominate this article for deletion here (see ).The problem with the article, as I see it, is that is the *only* reference to the word outside of blogs and the Merriam-Webster equivalent of wiktionary are the course lecture notes the (Dr Jeffrey reference).  A search for Extrasolar Dwarf Planet does, indeed, bring up a http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/719/1/803 peer reviewed paper so if the article's kept I'd prefer it was moved to that location per published literature
— User:Ka, 19:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:PROD||WP:PROD||WP:A||WP:NEO||WP:DEPROD (Wikipedia:Proposed deletion)