Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobdownsite


 * 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 Continue editorially. There is no clear consensus as to whether it should be kept or merged, but that discussion can be handled editorially as there's no input for deleting the content Star   Mississippi  14:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Bobdownsite

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

This mineral species has been discredited per the source linked on its talk page. A discredited mineral species presumptively lacks notability. Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think keep, but update to describe it as a mistake? If it was notable before (non-trivial coverage in sources) its non-existence doesn't make it non-notable to the best of my understanding. Possibly an upmerge, if there's a suitable candidate? Guettarda (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia has articles for some other IMA-discredited minerals e.g. Crossite, Pimelite, Uranocircite, Bakerite, Felsőbányaite, so perhaps discrediting by the IMA may indeed not remove Wikipedia notability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's notability guidelines give insufficient guidance about things that were notable for being 'something' but which were later discovered to not be that 'something'. GeoWriter (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to Whitlockite, briefly noting that Bobdownsite is a discredited variant of that mineral. I'm persuaded by 's argument that, since multiple reliable sources referenced it before it was discredited, there needs to be a redirect of the term and a discussion somewhere in the encyclopedia. But since it has been discredited, that discussion should be brief, just enough to explain what it was thought to be and why that no longer holds. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't being disproven still warrant mention in the article? Whatever it is, it was discussed in scientific papers for years. The thing being disproven doesn't negate the fact that is was postulated and discussed for years in the scientific community. Being a "non-thing" is still a "thing" if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have an article specifically on Piltdown man, even though it was discredited, because it shaped some subsequent science and because it became notorious with the non-scientific public. Neither applies here, so I don't support an independent article, but I believe it should be mentioned in the Whitlockite article -- briefly, because I think it doesn't deserve a lot of weight. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I could support a redirect, with perhaps a brief mention of the " "thing" being disproven" Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge to Whitlockite, briefly noting that Bobdownsite is a discredited variant of that mineral, changing the Bobdownsite article into a redirect to Whitlockite. The subject of a Wikipedia article must be notable but not all notable subjects must have a Wikipedia article, therefore there is no necessity for Bobdownsite to be kept as an article instead of becoming a redirect. GeoWriter (talk) 22:35, 4 May 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.