Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Photogeochemistry

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photogeochemistry[edit]

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

I do not think that this a term with any wide currency: possibly worth a redirect, but I don't know where to TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not going to pretend that this article doesn't have problems. But I don't see anything that leaps out on a cursory examination, and the term itself has at least some currency; a Google Scholar search is fairly productive, with well-cited Science of the Total Environment and Plant and Soil articles early in the results list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Squeamish Ossifrage. The latest paper it shows is from 2013, which in turn cites another paper using the term which I don't think is in the Scholar list. Also one paper in PNAS, which uses the term as a category for identifying the paper. ghytred talk 17:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interdisciplinary fields are becoming more common, and this one definitely has some practitioners and citations. "Photo geochemistry" may be a variation of the name. — Gorthian (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2015 (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.