Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fried Egg structure


 * 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. ✗ plicit  03:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Fried Egg structure

 * – ( View AfD View log )

These claims fail the GNG, as they have only received reliable coverage from a single reliable source, a BBC article. The initial announcement was a self-published conference abstract. A 2017 abstract suggest that they are more likely to be volcanic craters, but again this has not been published in a journal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The second abstract is also the only further treatment I could find. The structures are listed on what I believe passes as two authoritative registers - both have it as "potential" - but these lists are vast; just look at ... I'd agree that more coverage than two conference abstracts and one writeup based on the first of these is needed to qualify for an article. Bit bummed that neither of the two teams seems to have found it necessary to publish their findings in a journal, that would probably have done it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Having gone through many fringe impact claims, I'm conviced that Anna Mikheeva's list is not really that useful. The list includes basically every impact claim that has ever been made, no matter where it has been published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Neither list passes as a peer-reviewed authoritative register such as the Earth Impact Database. Both lists appear to be essentially self-published compilations that the author(s) has(have) posted to their organization's websites without either peer review or similar vetting. They are useful for the citations that they provide. However, both are apparently basically non-peer reviewed professional judgements of the author(s) that fail to qualify as relible sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. 2. I suspect that a journal paper was not published about the "Fried Eggs feature" because the only data that they had on it was multibeam bathymetry data and they were unable to generate funding to specifically study these features. Paul H. (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Somoza, L., Medialdea, T., Gonz lez, F.J., Calado, A., Afonso, A., Albuquerque, M., Asensio-Ramos, M., Bettencourt, R., Blasco, I., Cand n, J.A. and Carreiro-Silva, M., 2020. Multidisciplinary Scientific Cruise to the Northern Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Azores Archipelago. Frontiers in Marine Science. vol. 7, article 568035 Paul H. (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks notability. Seems that "fried structure" is a catchy name, used in various science domains- if one would judge from g.scholar. But anyway, the coverage is limited concerning the subject of the specific article. Cinadon36 12:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks notability and independent, reliable, secondary sources, from which a neutral article can be constructed. For example, I could only find a recent, additional brief reference to "...an area named “Fried Eggs” (Dias et al., 2009), characterized by numerous volcanic edifices..." in


 * 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.