Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean Origins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was KEEP. GTBacchus(talk) 04:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean Origins

piffle masquarading as fact. bad capitals too. BL kiss the lizard 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - nothing salvagable here Barneyboo (Talk) 23:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article is linked very prominently in Ocean. If the content is valuable, it should be merged into that section in Ocean. ×Meegs 00:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - but surely there's an article in Wikipedia that talks about where the oceans came from? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per TikiWiki. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is nothing in Wikipedia that explains where the oceans came from. I was hoping that other users could help expand this article in time, but appearantly no one has. Roman Soldier 01:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

-how about recreating the page under Origin of the World's Oceans? Roman Soldier 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - I think the best way to go about it would be to include that information as a section in the Ocean article, and then if that section gets so big that it doesn't fit well in the main article, it would then be appropriate for it to "bud off" as a separate one. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Roman Soldier points out, there seems to be nothing on the Wikipedia on this topic. The closest that I could find in a quick search was a brief mention at Early bombardment phase. Unfortunately, this article is not was is needed. This article should be deleted, and hopefully someone will soon create a non-stubby Origin of Earth's oceans, which will cover the different theories on the ocean's origins. BlankVerse 02:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, but rename the current, stubby rewrite. BlankVerse 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've left a note at Talk:Ocean#Origin of Oceans? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Proven to be highly relevant. See Google "Results 1 - 20 of about 145,000 English pages for ocean's origin (0.30 seconds)". The topic is also distinct from "Ocean(s)", in that it can be expanded with sub topics, such as "non-scientific theories" which would be inappropriate for a standard "Ocean" page. "Past Non-scientific theories" as to the origin of the ocean might reference examples of Greek Mythology, and "current non-scientific theories" might reference modern day religious belief(s). We should not force topics into mergers based on a common word, or into constrictive brevity as a result. Topics should be given room to grow where there might be interest. Good candidates for this might be topics that are 1) highly relevant and 2) distinct, by virtue of the types of sub categories that could possibly follow. This topic is both and has been prematurely put at risk for deletion. Moreover the user might not continue to contribute if they feel the environment is overly critical and has wasted his/her time. The user was correct in understanding the value of the topic as separate from "Ocean(s)". I have added a few additions to the topic to improve it. A reference and internal link should be placed on "Ocean(s)" to Ocean Origins --TikiWiki 05:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename - looks stubby, but at least it's a start (I agree with BL Lacertae's original comment though. What was there when she put the notice on looked rubbishy). The name needs an overhaul though - I'd suggest Origin of the Earth's oceans or similar. Grutness...wha? 11:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename per above. Some moons may have oceans as well, so it is necessary to distinguish the world. An explanation is probably needed due to Giant impact hypothesis, which stripped off a good portion of the Earth's surface layers. — RJH 16:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Grutness Jcuk 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Trite. Simplistic. The number of Google 'hits' has nothing to do with this articles significance. The article contributes no information. 82.38.97.206 21:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)mikeL

  • CommentIt's relevance is a verified fact. Significance can be an opinion as it seems to be in your comment. A contribution should stay as long as it's relevant to a reasonable number of people. It's not trite. Kids write papers on the origins of all kinds of formations for school. They could pick this up on a google search and find Wikipedia. --TikiWiki 00:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There should be an article here about the origin of the oceans. -- Astrokey44|talk 09:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment After a week and a half this page still hasn't closed. I'm still shocked that anyone even nominated it for deletion. All of the crap on Wikipedia and we can't have an article about the origins of the oceans? And the capitialization problem can be solved simply by moving the page. Roman Soldier 02:32, 28 December 2005 (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.