Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I kicked off a debate about the notability of Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland. This article came to the attention of a rather arcane group of editors at WP:BISE (me amongst them) who debate at length the worthiness of various usages of the term British Isles. My personal view is that the article as it stands is not notable as it is not part of a geographic series of articles, nor is the subject matter of any particular note. But I'm not a geologist, so I thought it might be useful to ask at WP:Geology, before taking to WP:AFD. I've had no response there. So now we are here.

The images on the BP:BISE talkpage seem to show that the Britain and Ireland anomalies are related to their position at the edge of the Continental Shelf. I think this article actually provides a template for what the article could/should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might - just might - come back to having a Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the entire globe, if at all.

So for now I am proposing in the first instance, is that the article should be deleted. Failing that, if the community feels that it is worthwhile, it could be moved to List of gravity anomalies, and refactored. Or it might just be a merge into Gravity anomaly. But I will start with a delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - as per nom Fmph (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable enough although the article needs improving. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm unconvinced on the notability of those particular gravity anomolies, but the article should not be deleted just because it is not part of a larger series. If there's no interest by others to create the larger series, it doesn't meet that the article is not noteworthy.  Unless an editor steps forward to create the more general article suggested above, lets keep this article.  If someone does decide to create List of gravity anomalies with this article and expands it appropriately, then that's a simple move, not a delete. --HighKing (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see how this is anything wikipedia is not, although I could be wrong. I'm hesitant to simply delete an article simply because of its quality, as it does have information not currently on other articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information here is coherent, interesting, and sourced. The absence of similar articles for other parts of the globe is no reason to delete it. And why should the fact that people often find it convenient to publish this information in map form mean that the topic is any less notable? Anyway, there are non-map publications on these anomalies too: e.g., , , . --Avenue (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The only reason this article is being flagged for deletion is becuase it contains the words "British Isles". LevenBoy (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I could spend some time explaining the origin of the various anomalies, most of which are unrelated to the position of the continental shelf, but that should be in the article, which I will take a look at (although probably not for a few weeks). Given the size of most geologically important anomalies, they should not be handled at a larger scale than this. Mikenorton (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Since I created the article in the first instance you'd expect me to vote to keep it! I certainly agree that it could be improved (and there must be plenty of Wikipedians out there with the relevant expertise to do that!) and I've taken some steps to do that today with additional references relating to geological discoveries resulting from mapping of certain of the anomalies. I'd be interested to see material on GA's in other parts of Europe and the wider world - not least to display their relationships with geological structures and indeed physiographical features. cheers Geopersona (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting, well-referenced, it would make a good model for other similar articles. First Light (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: - It is clear there is not support for deletion, perhaps we should consider having a debate on the name of the article, and if British Isles would be more appropriate than Britain and Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  --  Jujutacular  talk 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are not regional geological journals, it is the journal of the British Geological Survey, which is a highly notable academic body. Happy for a discussion on whether the term "British Isles" should be used and whether "Britain and Ireland" should be used as the basis for one article, but quite frankly, I don't think think we should make a special effort to appease people who take offence on minor issues. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article appears to be useful. Reasons for deletion are trivial. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. Article is worthwhile, interesting, informative and seems to be of reasonable quality. Can't see any reason to destroy it. --Ischium (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is interesting, worthwhile and useful. Perhaps we should consider having a debate on the name of the article but nothing is gained by deleting it. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 06:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am slightly curious why this has come here, given that the question regarding notability was asked on the talkpage and pretty much everyone said it was notable. The nominator makes no reference to the sources provided, and neither do they appear to have looked for sources themselves. If they had done they could see that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about this very topic. Quantpole (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient sourcing. Probably not tagged for deletion for knowledge-based reasons to put it kindly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2010 (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.