Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygen isotope ratio cycle

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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). It is clear that there is consensus to keep this article, not least from merging/moving proposals, and as such this is a content discussion best suited at the article's talk page. WilliamH (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen isotope ratio cycle

Why? All the issues discussed in the previous comments and more. E.g.: it contains incorrect definitions and/or descriptions. like that a molecule contains the three isotopes. This article should be deleted and the article oxygen-18 corrected and expanded. That is, if you think that the this wiki should be regarded as a serious reference cource. Jclerman (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is more coherent than the nomination and has adequate sources to support it. Any detailed errors are just a matter for normal content editing and the issue about a molecule has already been addressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article goes beyond what is approptriate for oxygen-18. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, suggest speedy keep. Seems to be an adequately referenced article about an interesting phenomenon in earth history. I do not understand why this is here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems" is in the eye of the beholder. The interesting and useful phenomena are the variations in the delta values, cyclical or not. I suggest: recast the text with proper emphasis in variations, then merge into O-18, delta O-18, and/or paleoclimatology. Jclerman (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such editing actions do not require deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier than eliminating the term cycle or cycles from the page title. Jclerman (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, changing an article title may be done by any registered editor by pressing the move tab for that article. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A rename, or a merge, may well be appropriate, but I don't see an obvious one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 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]
Rename and expand, move to Oxygen isotope ratio and expand to explain what this ratio is and what it measures, before discussing how it varies over time. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either move as per TV above, or merge into Proxy (climate). In either case, it really needs fixing by someone who properly knows the subject - sadly that isn't me William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a content discussion that doesn't belong at AfD. Any discussion about what the article should say or be called or be merged with belongs on the article talk page, not here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Renaming to oxygen isotope ratio sound reasonable. Another option that has not been mentioned is to merge into isotopes of oxygen. --Itub (talk) 11:11, 6 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.