Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anomalous oxygen

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 delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalous oxygen[edit]

This article is absolutely incorrect - DELETE IT, PLEASE

The anomaly is the difference in density between a pure O-16 containing gas and a gas containing also heavier isotopes. No oxygen is anomalous. Jclerman (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The article seems coherent, factual and is supported by a good source. The issue just seems to be a matter of the language used but the objection seems to originate from someone who is not a native English speaker. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. A google search reveals that the term is actually used, but it seems to be little more than unusual terminology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

study of the many scholarly sources indicate that analysis of such anomalies occurs in disparate fields such as geology and astronomy. There's too much science here for a dictionary entry. Dictionaries are for words, not complex phrases. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two words are not a complex phrase. If you are right, then a rename is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rename or merge somewhere. Too little material for an article.Biophys (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the language before commenting

1. The article NRLMSISE-00 already discusses the new concept of anomalous oxygen, discussed in one or two of the slew of googled scholarly references:

"hot" atomic oxygen and ionospheric atomic oxygen ions (O+), which can be of primary importance during the summer at high latitudes and altitudes above 600 km. Since neither of these species is in thermal equilibrium with the thermosphere, the new NRLMSISE-00 model treats them as a new component to drag called "anomalous oxygen."

2. All the other googled references refer not to isotope qualities of anomalous oxygen but to anomalous isotope-qualities of oxygen. Few of the slew of googled references follow the correct grammar usage by hyphenating, eg as follows: anomalous oxygen-isotope composition. Many authors omitt the hyphem because either they are not native speakers of English or they assume that the readers are native speakers of technical jargon and avoid the hyphen when the meaning of the chain of multiple adjectives is obvious to the reader. I think that the Chicago Manual of Style Online advocates some non-hyphenated uses. These anomalies are fully discussed in the articles oxygen-18, Isotope analysis, paleoclimate, and many other proxies.Jclerman (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reference is one paper dealing with this anomaly, but that doesn't mean that the anomaly is a good topic for an article. I agree with Jclerman that this can be discussed better in broader articles. I would call this a merge except that the title is wrong (per the reasons given by Jclerman) and probably not worth the redirect. --Itub (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name of the article is misleading - the oxygen is not anomalous, but the ratio of the percentages of the various isotopes is the actual focus of the article, which seems to border on trivia. One published article falls well short of the bar for WP:V and WP:RS. This is written as an abstract, rather than an encyclopedia article, that serves only as an introduction. The article ends with "deductions can be made" - Deductions of what? If it's to be saved (and I cannot see why), it could be merged into oxygen with one line summarizing the abstract. B.Wind (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2008 (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.