Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmochemical Periodic Table of the Elements in the Solar System


 * 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. Tone 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cosmochemical Periodic Table of the Elements in the Solar System

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This featured in a few news articles in October 2003, but I see no evidence that it has had any significant impact in the world of science since then. Accordingly, I think giving this concept a Wikipedia article is out of all proportion to its importance. BTW the data in the article is already at Abundance of the chemical elements, so there's no reason to keep the article for the data. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on. The table of data in that article would save much work - we often need those data for elements articles and it is much handier than the graph. I would wait for other replies to propose a solution (merge, wikilink, etc.) but anyway, would a closing admin please let me know before deleting this article. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - sorry, I was wrong about all the data being in Abundance of the chemical elements. In fact the chart is there, but the table is not. BTW the table is simply copied from http://solarsystem.wustl.edu/our%20reprints/2003/cosmochem-table.pdf. Anyway, are you saying that you think the article is important enough to keep? I've been waiting for opinions on this one... Peter Ballard (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We keep such tables in Chemical elements data references - their numbers are used in the individual elements articles. This one can be placed there, though I would rename it to something like Abundances of the elements in the Solar System. All those tables are copies from web or book sources (sometimes updated or combined), but mere wikifying pdf tables is already time consuming. Materialscientist (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep  and rename to Abundances of elements in the Solar System. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - No need to create Abundances of elements in the Solar System - the data is already in Abundances of the elements (data page). Peter Ballard (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Right you are - my bad. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I missed that. Then delete this redundant article! The data are slightly different, but as we already have 2 sources (with uncertainties, etc), there is no need to have a separate third! Materialscientist (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 00:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarification - we've established that the data is elsewhere on WP, but what about the concept itself, i.e. the idea of a "Cosmochemical Periodic Table")? I'd like to see keep/delete comments on that before a decision is made. (My opinion is that it doesn't seem to be important enough for a WP article, but I'm not an expert in the field so I'd appreciate other opinions). Peter Ballard (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To me "Cosmochemical Periodic Table .." is just awkward slang - table remains the same, only abundances change between the Earth and Solar System. There is no "new idea" in this sense. Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * this isnt even a periodic table. it would have to arrange elements by their periodicity, not just atomic number. and i agree its a poorly phrased term even though someone did create a periodic table with this info in it. However, i do like the visual portrayal of this info, and would like to see it in the already existing article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the picture was long ago in Abundance of the chemical elements and Chemical element, and I think a colored version of it is also around in elements articles. Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, terminology is only used once in the scientific literature. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:35, 25 October 2009 (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.