Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plate theory (volcanism)


 * 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 speedy keep. WP:SK1 Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC) fixed by The SandDoctor Talk at 00:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Plate theory (volcanism)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As is, this article is a WP:POVFORK of mantle plume. In geology and geophysics, the idea of mantle plumes not existing at all is pretty fringe, and this article presents this idea without any criticism, based on primarily on the research of the minority of scholars who support such views, such as Gillian Foulger and Don L. Anderson. Alternative models to mantle plumes should be discussed in the mantle plume article, where they can be critiqued in context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdraw per SphericalSong's comments, to give the article a chance to improve. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The mantle plume hypothesis is quite controversial and the work of gathering and analysing the evidence about what is actually going on is a work-in-progress. See The question of mantle plumes for a reasonable survey of the issue.  As it's not so long since plate tectonics itself became established, it's clear that the science is not settled and so we should not be trying to pick winners.  In any case, none of this is a reason to delete as the debate about the competing theories is highly notable.  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep if Mantle plume is also kept. Delete if Mantle plume is also deleted. Current lack of criticism in an article should not be justification for deletion of the article if this problem could be solved by adding such criticism, sourced from reliable secondary sources. Mantle plumes and plate theory (volcanism) are currently treated by most of their supporters as mutually exclusive explanations of intraplate volcanism (but perhaps reality/"the truth" may eventually be understood to involve a combination of both explanations, depending on the features of individual examples, but it's still too early to decide). Of these three articles, the top-level article in the hierarchy is intraplate volcanism not mantle plume. The two main opposing explanations (Plate theory (volcanism) and Mantle plumes) have their own articles, below intraplate volcanism in the article hierarchy. Would it be more accurate to regard both plate theory (volcanism) and mantle plumes as possible point of view forks of intraplate volcanism with equal "forking" status because both are proposed explanations of intraplate volcanism? If so, why should Plate theory (volcanism) be deleted for forking, while mantle plume is allowed to survive? Perhaps it may be fairer (and more in keeping with Wikipedia Policy:neutral point of view) to delete both plate theory (volcanism) and mantle plume leaving only the intraplate volcanism article. (A merge template message: "It has been suggested that Mantle plume and Plate theory (volcanism) be merged into this article. (Discuss) Proposed since January 2021." is currently displayed at the top of the intraplate volcanism article). GeoWriter (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And who is doing this cleanup, exactly? I really don't blame Kent G. Budge for bailing, as it's easily many dozens of hours of work to clean this stuff up. WP:NPOV states that Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Mantle plumes are a tricky topic, but the outright denial of the existence of mantle plumes is a minority opinion in contemporary geophysics, and as such this should be reflected in the proportion to the prominence given to such views. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The more I think about this, the more I think a RfC on WT:GEOLOGY is likely to be a better resolution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree there are problems with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, but I believe they can be solved. I also agree that discussion of a Request for Comment on WT:GEOLOGY (and/or discussion at the existing Talk:Intraplate_volcanism) will probably be a better course of action than this Article for deletion request, because it may make discussion of the contents and fate of the three linked articles easier. GeoWriter (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep While mantle plumes (MP) is the prevalent, accepted theory for almost all major instances of intraplate volcanism (IV), this IV hypothesis seems to have enough (albeit minority) traction in the real world for viable alternative consideration of some such instances. A major part of the problem here is presentational: it is sometimes presented as "either MP explains all, or IV explains all".  This polarisation certainly should, of course, be resisted.  But that doesn't undermine the acceptance of "perhaps IV might be an explanation of some".  So keep but monitor and fix the articles, particularly IV, to remove any exclusive either/or comparisons.  Might we also rename it from "intraplate volcanism" to "intraplate volcanism hypothesis" to help convey that it is hypothesis rather than more formal theory? Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The intraplate volcanism article should be expanded to include more description of the products of such volcanism e.g. landforms and lava compositions. This would reduce the proportion of the article related to hypothetical/theoretical explanations and avoid the renaming of the article. GeoWriter (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep As you’ll see from my username, I created this page, and also edited several hotspot pages and related ones. First, I would like to state that I am not Gillian Foulger, as some of you have suggested. I prefer to remain anonymous, and I believe this is something Wikipedia allows me to do. I am also not trying to use Wikipedia to surreptitiously promote the plate theory. One of the central maxims on the various guides on Wikipedia is “assume good faith”, so please extend me this courtesy and allow me to explain the motivations behind my edits and creation of this page.

I have fairly recently taken an interest in volcanic hotspots and the debate surrounding mantle plumes and was interested to see how the debate is presented to the public on Wikipedia. When looking through the Wikipedia pages on various hotspots, I saw that many of these pages are quite substantial and informative, cite a good range of up-to-date literature, and discuss both plume and tectonic explanations. A number of pages, however, simply state the plume interpretation as fact. Many of these are stubs, consisting of a sentence or two. Some of them have no citations, while others either cite a website or a very old paper such as Morgan’s original article on mantle plumes – fifty years old this year.

While reading some of the literature on the foregoing hotspots, I thought it would be useful to edit the pages. My main motivation was to expand the pages by providing more details on both plume and tectonic interpretations and to substantiate these details with references to recent scientific literature in order to better inform the public (and many students who use Wikipedia) of current debates about the origin of volcanic activity in these areas. A secondary – and rather more selfish – motivation was to help myself to remember what I was learning by writing something about it, and improving the Wikipedia pages about and related to some hotspots seemed to be a good opportunity to do this. It was never my intention to argue for a particular view, but rather to present the origins of volcanic activity in the areas as open questions which are subject to ongoing debate. It was never my intention to take sides. Like many scientists, I’m actually agnostic on this issue – knowledge of the Earth’s interior is still very much in its infancy, and this is one of the things that makes the topic so fascinating. If my edits came across as favouring the plate hypothesis, this is because I am very new to Wikipedia editing and was not aware of the requirement that majority views should be stated in greater detail than minority views. I am currently working towards re-editing the pages, going into more detail on the different plume interpretations and evidence for them and citing more articles, and making clear that tectonic explanations are a minority view where this is the case. (In some cases the latter are more popular: the Newer Volcanics Province in Australia, for example – while plume interpretations are widely held for the older time-progressive volcanism to the northeast, many – including those who advocate plumes elsewhere – think tectonic interpretations are more plausible for the NVP.)

Having edited the hotspot pages, I thought it would be a good idea to create a page for the plate theory/hypothesis (I don’t think much hinges on whether it’s called a “theory” or a “hypothesis” and have no quarrel with anyone who wants to change it to the latter). Here again, my intention was (a) to inform the public and students about the theory and (b) to consolidate what I was learning about it, not to promote the theory. As many of you rightly note, it is in indeed in need of improvement, and it was always intended as a work in progress that I would go back and improve as I learn more about the debate – and of course it is open to others to improve it too. One of the main problems with it, as has been noted, is that it doesn’t include criticism of the theory. Another, as Feline Hymnic has rightly pointed out, is that it and other pages related to the debate present the debate in an overly simplistic manner, as if one view has to be correct and the other wrong. Actually, as FH notes, things are much more subtle. On the one hand, few scientists believe that plumes can explain all volcanism not obviously associated with subduction zones and spreading ridges. On the other hand, only a minority go so far as to deny the existence of plumes. It may well be that volcanic anomalies are polygenetic, with some caused by plumes and others caused by shallow tectonic processes - this seems to be the view of many geoscientists. I agree with FH that the page should indeed be reframed in a way that reflects such subtleties.

There are a few other things I would like to highlight briefly. My inclusion of a link to mantleplumes.org was not intended to promote the website – which I have nothing to do with – but merely to direct the interested reader to further information about the plate theory and the debate about mantle plumes. Many Wikipedia pages have links to websites for further information, so I didn’t think this was problematic. Some of you have issues with the images and have requested their deletion. If there are problems with copyright, this is because I am new to Wikipedia editing and may indeed have made some mistakes when uploading images to Wikimedia. The process seems rather complicated, so any advice on the correct procedure for uploading and using images would be very much appreciated.

My proposal for the page is as follows. As some of you have pointed out, revising the page will be a fair amount of work, and as I created it, it seems appropriate that I should take on the work. First, I will reframe the discussion in line with Feline Hymnic’s observations, so that it doesn’t come across as an “all-or-nothing” issue. Second, I will make clear that the plate theory (and especially the outright denial of mantle plumes) is a minority view. Third, I will add a section on “criticisms of the plate theory”. It was always my intention to add such a section, and I am currently reading literature criticising the theory with a view to doing this. Fourth, I will rectify the issue with the images. I am open to suggestions for further improvements.

I will find time to complete the above tasks in the next few weeks. Obviously, I would prefer to be given the opportunity to do this and would rather the page wasn’t simply deleted. For many hotspots, the plate theory is indeed a minority view. But there is substantial disagreement and debate among the scientific community, and this I think should be reflected on Wikipedia, which is often the first port of call for students, laypeople, and even researchers who want to learn about an area of science. Many other minority views have a presence on Wikipedia, and if the page needs improving so as to better fit with the aims of Wikipedia – and I readily concede that it does – then allow me to improve it.

I thank you for your comments and suggestions, which will be invaluable in helping me revise the page. My apologies for not coming forward and discussing this earlier. Aside from being busy with other things, I have been surprised and rather anxious about the controversy I seem to have caused with my edits and my creation of the page in question. It was never my intention to cause controversy, and I wasn’t sure how best to engage with the discussions that are taking place. I am doing so now because I feel it is important (a) to stress that I made the edits and page in good faith and with no hidden agenda and (b) to make clear my intention to make the necessary improvements to the page under discussion. All the best, SphericalSong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SphericalSong (talk
 * Thanks for this thorough and contrite response. Sorry I assumed bad faith about your intentions, mantleplumes.org promoting your work made me suspicious, though it's always easy to be a cynic. I shall withdraw this deletion request now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (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.