Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thermal optimum

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 Comments support the article. Teke^(talk) 03:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal optimum

This is an unsourced one sentence stub (since August 2005)related to sea level and global temperature. Very few Google hits which are not ambiguous or mirrors of this Wikipedia article. In relation to current controversies of climate change, the article should be fleshed out or deleted. It seems POV to say the "Thermal optimum" would have the sea levels 5 to 6 meters higher than now. Edison 17:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This stub seems to cover the same thing as Holocene climatic optimum which is a longer sourced article but gives different dates and does not make the same statements about sea levels. Thermal optimum seems to have originated in Middle Jomon, an unsourced article about the early years of what is now Japan. Edison 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete (HCO is far better) is possibly redirect to said HCO, though I'm not sure thats useful William M. Connolley 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) or make into sensible article as per KP Botany William M. Connolley 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Keep now its been re-written William M. Connolley 09:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to HCO per above - it doesn't seem to have any widespread use. Trebor 21:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (in response to below) Hmm, okay. Can anyone write a correct article on the topic for consideration? Trebor 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will write two short articles, one for geology, and one for biology, although I'll probably change the name for the geology one to Thermal maximum. I ordered the main source for Quaternary climate change use, have a couple of articles that discuss the Late Jurassic/Cretaceous thermal maximum without using the word, and can write that one in the next day or two, and have retrieved a couple of biological articles, and will get that up. Wouldn't hurt for folks to drop in on them and copyedit, although I generally spell check. KP Botany 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh, thermal optima are well-studied phenomena of the biological and geological/climatic sciences. Obviously the article is a piece of crap, and maybe it's not on the web, but here are some articles, abstracts and pages about it that are not google mirrors--did anyone search a scientific database or scholar? The definition is completely wrong. In biology the term is used in introductory textbooks, it's not even particularly technical, it just refers to the maximum temperatures for biological processes that an organism can withstand. Redirecting it to Holocene climatic optimum is akin to redirecting battleship to USS Wisconsin (BB-64). [1], [2], [3] (biology), [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Is "really really crappy" article a valid reason for deleting an encyclopediac topic? Shouldn't it just be refered for emergency work? KP Botany 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou are welcome to fix the article. Sounds like Thermal Optimum could be a good article if fully rewritten. Out of curiosity, do your sources support the claims of temp and sea level for the specific period cited ? I could not get all your cites to open , but the biology ones belong in a separate article. The first few do not appear to give the sealevel claims now in the article. Edison 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Oh, the article's totally wrong so I couldn't even figure out what they were talking about. I can disambiguate it later, but I just changed it. I'm slow at research and only wrote a bit, as I am not the least bit fond of writing articles without sources. I will read what I can today and change it again tomorrow. I included some abstracts, but if you're interested in any of the pdfs that you couldn't get to open I can e-mail you saved copies, they're just stuff I got off a friend's computer on Quaternary climate change. Although my background is in geology, all I've really read about it are studies on those organisms that live in tidepools that Darwin wrote about, lizards that lose their tails, and amphibians. It is, however, a well known topic in the sciences, and Wikipedia has tens of thousands of articles on less important topics. It must be made usable, and probably disambiguated into two articles, but it shouldn't be deleted. I will fix as much as I can in the next few days and add sources, then research it a bit more carefully. KP Botany 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is so poorly written it is hard to tell, but it appears to be nonsense. TimVickers 00:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem My version or the original version? Still, mine is crap, but it's not the same level of crap as the earlier version. And, yes, my prose is turgid, and needs editing. However, "poorly written" is a criteria for WP:CLEAN not AfD, so let's stick with the relevant criteria only. KP Botany 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 11:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is useful as it as , and will be the gateway to the more detailed articles expected. The terminology and the concept have been common for decades. There will certainly be sources, and notability is undoubted. It may have justified ad deletion for what I can best term as excessive stubbiness, but not now. DGG 02:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I would rather just delete it right now, then I can put up the biology and the geology/climatology articles and make this page a redirect. I'm a bit uncomfortable putting anything on Wikipedia without research, and I just haven't done any. DGG is correct, though, there is no way this topic can fail notability. I would feel better deleting for now, posting the contents to my talk page, then I'll get a new article up as soon as I get my resources. The library sent me the wrong IPCC text today, so it will be a bit longer. But, do not delete for failure of notability and its lack of direct connection to Holocene climatic optimum and its Japanese resources--Japanese and Arab researchers do a lot of research in this area, as well as American and European (predominantly French in the latter). KP Botany 03:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to the author/DGG 07:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per re-write and amssive emergency work that's been done on it. That list of sources, as well as a number of comments here show that it's a notable subject with a wide research base and wide appeal in its field. ThuranX 19:26, 14 January 2007 (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.