Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antarctic offshore geologic exploration


 * 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 redirect to Deep Sea Drilling Project. Any merging to the parent article can be done from the history behind the redirect, by any interested editor. Daniel (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Antarctic offshore geologic exploration

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:SYNTH: loose collection of statements not directly supported by the sources. All assertions with Craddock 1976 does not exist in source. Mys_721tx (talk) 06:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply to @Mys_721tx question on "all assertions with Craddock 1976 do not exist in source" There are four assertions on this page: With reference to sub-heading"Operation", please see the reference on P.724 "Although more than a dozen sites were originally planned, we were only able to attempt four holes". Withe reference to sub-heading "Discovery and accomplishment", please see P.725 Figure 1 which shows Sites 324 and 325 drilled on continental rise. Thre are included in the text of 5 wells on the continental margings. With reference to sub-heading "Sea floor spreading", please see P729 "At Site 325 the magnetic anomalies, basement depth, and fossils all suggest a late Oligocene basement age.". With reference to sub-heading "Ice-rafted debris", please see P.735 "Cores from the four Leg 35 sites were studied for evidence of ice-rafted debris in the form of small dropstones and quartz grains with distinctive microscopic surface textures suggestive of glacial transport", P.738 "...glaciation in Antarctica was weak in the earliest Miocene, moderate by the middle Miocene, extensive by about late middle Miocene, and probably full by sometime during the late Miocene...", and in Abstract "The glaciation of West Antarctica may have begun in the Eocene, but it was certainly underway by the Miocene. Interpretation of the sediments cored suggests that Antarctic glaciation was weak in the early Miocene, moderate by middle Miocene, extensive by late middle Miocene, and fully developed by sometime in the late Miocene. The intensity of glaciation subsequently declined, with several fluctuations, during the Pliocene and the Quaternary to its present moderate to extensive state"

Reply to "loose collection of statements not directly supported by the sources." This page was written purposely to avoid violating the copy right of the cited references, hence all geological technical terms have been replaced with interchangeable terms, and direct supporting statements may not be obvious. Contents of the cited text are, however, fully expressed in the page. Futhermore, the page was written with Powerpoint style, only presenting concise essential information to convey the subject of the page.

Please don't hesitate to ask further questions for clarification. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 陳建民 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Deep Sea Drilling Project which seems to be what the article is actually about. Without prejudice; if someone wanted to create an article in the future about the general concept of geological offshore drilling in Antarctica that WASN'T essentially a summary of that project, I could see it being possible. But there's nothing here now that isn't just a redirect to the other article. PianoDan (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply to suggestion of Redirect. The current page focuses on scientific results specifically the breakthough discoveries whereas the suggested redirect page presents limited or none at al the geogical results and accomplishments, just lists of operation data numbers. thank for consideration陳建民 (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You could certainly make a case for merging the properly verified content from the nominated article into the DSDP article. But there's no reason to have on article on the project, and another on its results. PianoDan (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The citation is listed. I don't see the article has to be removed. --Beta Lohman (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to Deep Sea Drilling Project, duplicates scope. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply to "duplicate scope". Please note more than 90% of the current page content not covered in Deep Sea Drilling Project. If redirect, could those subjects be lost?陳建民 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that this vote was changed from "Redirect" to "Merge" AFTER 陳建民 made their comment, so that should address the concern. PianoDan (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Deep Sea Drilling Project, with the possible of a selective merger from the history. This reads like a scientific paper, not an encyclopedia article, and is impenetrable to a general readership.   Sandstein   09:19, 7 January 2022 (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.