Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biotic pump

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biotic pump

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are three sources here. Two are associated with the coiners of the term, the third is an article in SciAm which discusses it tangentially thus: "Pokorny's work, coupled with a controversial new theory called the “biotic pump,” suggests [...]" - it makes clear that the theory has no significant currency outside the originators, who are, again, the only authors referenced.

I call WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE, but maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Interesting research but TOOSOON. Might be worth a short mention in water cycle at this point, but not an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well strike me dead. I need more sleep, Because the "Further reading" section was above the "References", I looked at the wrong sources (and I believe the nominator may have as well). The two sources actually given as references do establish sufficient notability and discussion in the literature, I guess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been featured in scientific news as well as in secondary sources and a book indicating it is noteworthy and deserves a wikipedia article. EvilxFish (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are exactly the sources noted above, and JzG has stated why they don't much contribute to notability of the term. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if you look the first two are not associated with the originators of the term (Drs. Makarieva and Gorshkov) and a theory that is controversial (or even outdated) does not mean it should not have a wiki article. It is true I added the original papers to the article in further reading but the text is not based on them. Also the focus of the news article is the biotic pump theory. EvilxFish (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another note with regards to the various quoted policies 1) something that is a fringe theory does not necessitate deletion only that it is given its due weight and the article worded as appropriate, 2) TOOSOON does not apply do due the availablity of independent secondary sources, 3) The sources quoted are published either by a university, an independent press or academic journal so I argue NEO doesn't apply either. EvilxFish (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Graeme Bartlett. The article is properly written and well sourced. In future more sources will be added by fellow Wikipedians. This type of knowledge article are very much essential for wiki readers. Genome$100 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In the future" doesn't enter into it - that's exactly the point with WP:TOOSOON. BTW, pasting the identical cookie-cutter waffle comments in multiple AfDs, even wrongly referencing the same editor here, is generally not a good tactic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue he was right with his first statement, "This article is well sourced". As I noted above the article relies mostly on secondary sources independent of the origonators of the theory contrary to what is suggest by the one who proposes this deletion. EvilxFish (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.