Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Pressure Iron Phases


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

High Pressure Iron Phases

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Some kind of original research. Article was already speedied once as redundant to the "Iron" article. Now re-created by a new user, but still no references, no explanation of the significance of this concept. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * delete - Doesn't seem to be anything here that can be used in iron, allotropes of iron, or [hexaferrum]]. Possibly create a redir to allotropes of iron from this and the previous article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I was ready to say keep by the title alone, but there is no directly related material here outside of the bare definitions. I don' have any idea how to use these articles that are not what they are about. MicroPaLeo (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's a lot more information here on high pressure forms than in the allotrope article and the subject is clearly notable, as a scholar search shows. Mikenorton (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the information, although it may be that getting past the "powerful implications" of the "mysterious features" is making it difficult. This article is not about the topic, it appears to be just two vague definitions followed by some essays that can't find the topic. While the subject may be notable, I can't see keeping an article on the subject that is not about the subject, for example the opening sentence mentions relevance to deep Earth, but the mentions of the core that follow are not tied into the surrounding text with geology. Maybe I am wrong and you can explain it to me, but, again, even if the topic is relevant, the article should be about the topic, not just random strings of an undergraduate essay. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete. The subject is already covered at Allotropes of iron and other articles; nothing here seems worth merging. -- 120.23.4.196 (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge about one sentence with Allotropes of iron. The discussion about triple point(s) is a possible thing to merge, but it is probably even better to rewrite this and delete.  There are too many uncertainties mentioned in the article to make most of this worth using. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:02, 13 February 2015 (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.