Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zirconian


 * 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 Geologic time scale. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Zirconian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am proposing deletion of this page on the grounds of WP:SIGCOV. A Google and Scholar search returns no relevant results (other than the Wikipedia article itself, or copies of). It is only defined in passing as a proposed geologic era of the hadean in Van Kranendonk et al. (2012) and Ogg et al. (2016) (which is mostly a concise version of Van Kranendonk et al. 2012). It has not received any coverage since then. The proposed Precambrian timeline is already outlined in the geologic time page. That section can be added to if needed to provide a little more information about the proposed time divisions, although it is sufficient in its current state. When defined by Van Kranendonk et al. (2012) an alternate name of Jack Hillsian was proposed. It has not been ratified by the IUGS/ICS and they changed the frequency (and way) of publication of the geologic time scale as outlined in 2013. Should the Zirconian era ever be officially ratified then a page for itself would be warranted, as it would become notable in the geologic literature.

In terms of other widespread coverage, aside from only one notable source mentioning it, it isn't used in geologic literature or education currently as use of the ICS official chart [] is required for publications in peer reviewed journals. Jarred C Lloyd (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  15:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. GeoWriter (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I interpret this as support to delete the article? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, support for deletion. GeoWriter (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. GeoWriter, you might want to change your !vote to match this format so it's clearer. Ifnord (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect rather than delete to Geologic time scale. The proposed division of Precambtian comes from the relevant international body, so that this is not a case of individual research.  I am not a geologist, but it is not clear that the proposal has been widely accepted or used.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2020 (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.