Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscillant


 * 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   Snow delete. Closing early, but it looks like this has received adequate scrutiny. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oscillant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article title appears to be a neologism. The provided references are respectively, a playpark action group (author appears to be article author), Wikibooks, the Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald, Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia which do not establish this as a verified term or notable topic. Further discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants Melburnian (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Several plant editors have searched and failed to find any reliable sources for this word, or even for the concept that it describes. See the discussion mentioned above to see a longer discussion. The author of the Wikipedia page admits that he also wrote the only non-wiki 'source,' which is a bloggish local park page. He says that he heard the term from someone else. I would love to be proven wrong, but there is so much that is dubious about this. There just isn't a single legitimate referenced usage of this term, anywhere, as it is used in this article. First Light (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Absent a reliable source, delete. If the phenomenon is real (and it seems plausible), and if there is a term used in reliable sources, that information will eventually come to light, and the article can be re-created.--Curtis Clark (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants, the words of the creator of the article reveal it to be based on original research, with no reliable source used as its foundation. As per Curtis, if the phenomenon is real, the article can be re-created at a later date, should a reliable source be found that provides a proper foundation. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article's author just retitled and moved the page to Oscillatory pools, editing it only to change the name and remove any references. By making the title descriptive, my opinion doesn't change—it still needs references from reliable sources. First Light (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the author can find reliable sources to support this. Tdslk (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't matter what the new name is, the content is original research and Wikipedia is not the place for it yet, per WP:OR. When/if it gets covered in reliable sources first, then we can have an article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of RS. Imc (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally if it is helpful to the author in finding RS, discussions can be found about tree movement causing ground to lose its consistency, e.g. see 'porridge'. There is research into the loss of root stability in trees, since this has serious insurance ramifications (e.g. search for 'windthrow', and also look through the previously mentioned discussion list). However none of this seems to have raised the idea of water being pumped to the surface by root movement. Imc (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. I have a feeling that someone is literally going through the urban dictionary and creating wikipedia pages to boost their creation count. I wish there was a speedy delete tag that we could use for these. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoDan (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (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.