Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedimentary isostasy


 * 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 return to draftspace. Please consult with the participating editors before considering this draft's return to mainspace. czar 14:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sedimentary isostasy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is almost entirely original research, see also this discussion Mikenorton (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The citation state of the article leaves much to be desired. However, the topic of Isostasy is certainly notable, and one option would be to merge this with that article, making use of the 31 citations provided in Sedimentary isostasy. It is unclear to me whether the uncited material is like that out of laziness (citations being available) or whether it is genuine editorial opinion (WP:OR). If the latter, a merge would be the likely outcome; if the former, keeping the article and citing or trimming the uncited paragraphs would be better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is some material in this article that might usefully find a home in the Isostasy article. Mikenorton (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so the outcomes are Merge or Keep, and we need to decide which based on evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In the discussion at the NOR noticeboard that I linked to above (linked again here), I've suggested that a small part of the article should be merged into an article (as yet unwritten) on lower crustal flow, which would be a better choice. I will endeavour to make a start on it before the end of this AfD. Mikenorton (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, giving nom time to rescue the "small part" for lower crustal flow. I've never seen anything like this in all the AfDs I've ever visited. Given the linked discussion between and nom (Mikenorton) it appears there is definite opinion among geologists that the article is WP:OR and that the article's author  has stated in a Delphic utterance that "I shall consider the points raised carefully and revert later with constructive responses." -- leaving it quite unclear whether any sort of cooperation is available. But it seems to me that the expert discussion is the best guidance we can hope for. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete with regret, from the mainspace at least. I've come across this draft several times in the context of reviewing AFC submissions.  Here is a record of the communication I've had with the draft creator regarding the draft:
 * User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 4
 * User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 4
 * User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 5
 * User talk:StraussInTheHouse/Archive 6
 * I see from Draft:Sedimentary Isostasy that subsequently accepted the draft, but in my opinion it needs to go back to the draftspace per No original research.  It is unfortunate because  is clearly someone passionate about their field of study but from an encyclopedic standpoint this policy must be adhered to.  I would urge the creator to request a copy from an administrator, should the article be deleted, and continue working on it in the draftspace.    SITH   (talk)   09:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * draftify I should not have made this an article due to lack of referencing. Some may be referencable, but it will take quite a while for anyone that did not write this to figure out what is OR and what was written before. So back in draft space it can be slowly trimmed down to appropriate content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please hold back on deletion. I shall try to improve the text to take account of comments and suggestions by Mike Norton and others. Some comments about lateral flow were more relevant to the related Migmatite article, which also may require adjustment. Both articles are intended to be read together and are fully referenced reviews of previous work that omit every shred of originality, but unless editors accept my integrity in this there is no point in further discussion.Geologician (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2019 (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.