Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest known object on Earth


 * 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 redirect to Oldest rock. This does seem appropriate, as there can only be one oldest known object on Earth, and that object appears to be a... rock. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oldest known object on Earth

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Is is possible for us to have a useful article on this topic, that isn't full of unfounded speculation? Xorkl000 11:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think a good article COULD possibly be written on this subject, but, as the nominator says, this is full of weasel words, and a stub on this topic isn't exactly useful. Also, I know my word counts for nothing, but it's wrong. Rocks much older than the Earth have been discovered on Earth- remains of meteorites. J Milburn 11:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As J Milburn says, it might be an interesting object, and there appears to be a at least one reliable source (MSNBC). Again as above, the text is very weasely. I doubt it'll ever get expanded beyond a stub, which contains only one or two relevant sentences. If there's another article into which this information could be merged, go for that. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge The article now has 11 sources.  The BBC and the Independent both reported the finding and exhibiting of the zircon fragment while another section has been added discussing the dating of even older stony meteorites, particularly the meteorite which fell on a frozen lake in Canada in 2000 and is currently thought to be the oldest one known. Nick mallory 12:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hadean, and mention the information in the Hadean rocks section, or to oldest rock. The reason is because this is a plausible and useful search term, and given the news coverage from which the article derives its sources, it is somewhat notable (irrelevant to the fact as to its certainty). If the article is deleted, chances are it'll be recreated by someone in the future, requiring possibly instigating another AfD. School students might be curious as to what actually is the "Oldest known object on Earth", and the best way to explain it to them is to direct them to an article about the history of the earth.- Mtmelendez (Talk 12:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge: into Oldest rock. Now with 2 million articles completed -when one come across something as fundamental as this, it is almost certain to be covered else where;  thus should be checked out. See: Oldest_rock.  Other readers may not be sure of  what terms to enter in 'Search'.  For example just Google 'oldest object on earth' and this very article is second from top, so it makes sense to 'keep the title'. Just because the article might at the moment be poor that is no reason to delete it without any regard to its inherent importance, for it might act as the seed for someone with specialised knowledge to expand. So at least -do a check first to make sure their not duplication existing articles.--Aspro 12:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Oldest rock per Aspro, with a wikilinked mention at Hadean rocks section. In its current state, sources seem sufficient. I agree that the title is a potentially useful search term and should be kept. But given J Milburn's point, the language used in the article should probably reflect that the popular term is a misnomer. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into and redirect... I haven't made up mind who to cheer yet, Hadean or Old Rock. I'll be back.
 * ...Old Rock wins! I added a further to Hadean. "Oldest rock" already contains a "see also" to hadean.--Victor falk 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect Reads like some original research essay. If anything, it should redirect to some article related to the "lifecycle" or "history" of Earth.--Alasdair 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to uh, somewhere. :) It's an original-synthesis essay but it does have some useful content, so don't lose the history. &lt;  el eland  //  talk  edits  &gt; 15:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with oldest rock as the objects discussed are rocks or rock components. Object is rather a vague term, and what besides rock stuff could be meant? Vsmith 16:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful page per WP:IGNORE]. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Oldest rock per above. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Oldest rock. Alba 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Vsmith.Rickert 23:34, 27 September 2007 (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.