Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Andes Plate

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. As indicated in the discussion, scientific claims do not need to be considered proven (or even validly scientific) to be appropriate article subjects, as long as they meet our notability guidelines. If the article does not accurately represent the scientific consensus on the subject, this should be resolved by editing the article content rather than deletion. RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Andes Plate[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It is original research. There is no scientific consensus on the existence of this plate. Appears to be a fringe view (WP:FRINGE) based on a 2003 paper by Bird. The references does not mention the microplate. I propose part of the content is moved and merged into Geology of Colombia. The concern is similar to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altiplano Plate. Mamayuco (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Bird article mentioned by the nominator has been cited over 1300 times, which would seem to argue against WP:FRINGE. A quick Google search reveals numerous peer reviewed articles that refer to the plate. Whether or not there is a consensus on the existence of the plate isn't germane to whether or not the concept is notable, and this would unambiguously seem to be notable. PianoDan (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having been cited thousands of time does not mean that everthing in the article is correct or accepted. Geophysics have had much advance since 2003, so if the North Andes Plates would be an usefull construct it should have been noter so by other geologist working with plate tectonics. Just like Stephen Hawkings books and articles have been cites thousands of times some of his works are known to have been in error in some subjects. So, where is the validation that the North Andean Plate is indeed accepted among the plate tectonics community of Earth scientists? Mamayuco (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again - "Correct" and "Accepted" are NOT the metrics for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Notable" is the metric. We have an article on Phlogiston, after all. It took me ten seconds to find this article that refers to it, which has itself been cited 23 times. On the interaction of the North Andean Plate PianoDan (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't proclaim on the topic area, but yes, correct != notable (or the inverse). And the term crops up in a sufficient number of publications [1] to show that it's present in the discourse. I do wonder why that paper by Bird (actually 2.2k cites) is not actually used as a reference, and only hangs out as the single "Further reading" item on the page. - Below a VAST and otherwise unconnected "bibliography". That article is a confusing construct... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's certainly a concept that appears to be attracting more support with time. Analysing those Scholar results, half of the references are 2014 to the present, but a quarter of them are from the last two years. Mikenorton (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2021 (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.