Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analytical ecogeochemistry


 * 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.  DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Analytical ecogeochemistry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable new field of science. Just 53 hits on internet and exactly 0 (zero) on Google Scholar. Night of the Big Wind talk  13:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear colleagues! As this field is new and emerging, taking a strong transdisciplinary approach, it cannot be expected that there are many hits on google scholar. I therefore suggest not to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

here is one link to the leading marine research insitution world wide, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Insitute http://www.whoi.edu/sbl/liteSite.do?litesiteid=29552&articleId=82168 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)  — Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Here goes another article from Goldschmid Conference http://goldschmidt.info/2009//abstracts/finalPDFs/A1457.pdf

You can slo find the article "Eco-geochemistry: A new direction for geochemistry in China" by Xi, Xiaohuan; Li, Min Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Supplement, Volume 73, p.A1457 here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeCAS..73.1457X

I cannot see, why ist should not be possible to define new emerging things in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC) — Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep but Move to Ecogeochemistry see my comment below . The term "Analytical ecogeochemistry" does indeed return 0 google scholar results. The term "ecogeochemistry", however, returns 258 hits . Polyamorph (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The new thing is "Analytical Ecogeochemistry", a scientific effort characterized by the development of analytical techniques, that steer ecological research, and vice versa. There is also "Analytical Biogeochemistry", "Analytical Geochemistry" etc. existing. I cannot see, why it is not possible to speak about the new field of "Analytical Ecogeochemistry", which has been well defined in its meaning in the article. — Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment In which case there appears to be insufficient coverage in third party reliable sources at this time to support inclusion of the article under this title. Perhaps creating and expanding an article at Ecogeochemistry with a section on the new technique of analytical ecogeochemistry could be a compromise. But since the Ecogeochemistry article does't yet exist I can't see much alternative to deletion at this time. It's just too early. I suggest Userfication until third party sources can be found. Polyamorph (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, possibly WP:TOOSOON? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As a compromise I would agree to move the article to Ecogeochemistry, and keep the section on the new technique of analytical ecogeochemistry.

Probably userfication might also be an option...I am open for your suggestions. Anyway, the discussion clearly shows, that a publication laying down the principles of Analytical Ecogeochemistry has to be published at an international level. Please have a look on the final version of the wiki entry. I still think the contribution is absolutely worth publishing it.
 * Delete without prejudice towards recreation once a more substantial body of peer-reviewed work is published. --~TPW 23:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Given the number of articles with less support by literature and evidence in wikipedia, I suggest to keep this article. Geochemistry is well defined, as is Analytical science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas zitek (talk • contribs) 07:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but every article is judged on its own merits. Comparing with other articles is useless, but normally it is taken as acknowledgement of lack of notability in its own right. Night of the Big Wind  talk  08:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I see. Thank you very much for that info. I was just wondering as I found many other articles when doing research for other topics with less notability...but anyway, a decision will be made soon. As I´m new to Wikipedia, it`s really interesting, how this whole process of discussion is organized.Unfortunately the Wiki documents to learn how the system works and is organized, are very huge and fragmented, so it is not very easy to understand all things going on.
 * True. So is one of the thing you can't find quickly how to sign your comments on talkpages (not articles!!). If you type four tildes ( ~ ) the system will automagically replace this by your name, the date and the time.... (hint)
 * Many people make the mistake to make pages for something new (I made that mistake too) or to do announcements. In fact, the encyclopedia only wants articles about things that are more or less established. At least to have a significant number of reliable third party sources that makes clear that the subject is noteworthy. It is a bit of trial and error to find out if something qualifies or not. Often, you only know that while writing or after writing. So everybody will loose published articles or have been writing articles that will never be published. It is nasty, but don't bother too much about it. There are enough things out in the real world that are noteworthy and wait for an article. Keep up the good work! Night of the Big Wind  talk  13:22, 20 October 2011 (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.