Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a split off from Hydraulic fracturing, material doesn't really warrant its own article, but seems to be too long to merge into the main article. Most of this is either covered in Hydraulic fracturing, or Radioactive tracers, or the Radionuclides article. BarkingFish 02:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article based on the fact that Wikipedia is missing information on this aspect of hydraulic fracturing, and yet the main article does not warrant this level of detail on the topic. This article is similar in purpose to the article List of additives for hydraulic fracturing. It is information people would likely want to know, but you wouldn't want that level of detail in the main article. There is a link to it instead. I also wrote it because it was information I looked for on Wikipedia almost a year ago - and it wasn't there yet. There is more information to add - regulations, specifics about use, etc. Smm201`0 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping it, for the reasons given by Smm201´0. Sindinero (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on lucid description by User:SMM201`0. --Lquilter (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A very good and detailed article, delete is a last resort when failing all other guidelines. While it cannot be merged directly, there is plenty of reliable sources, prolonged coverage and detail that this article covers which cannot be reasonably merged to the main topic. Such pages may be summarized in brief on the main article with a link for the more detailed, as this topic is very broad and so is this article's subject is also broad in comparison to reports and singular radionuclide findings done by industry and government level reports. It condenses obscure esoteric reports into something more concrete for the interested reader and does so without technical jargon. This supporting article is important to the fracking topic and thus it is important to Wikipedia's scope of coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was insisted that the main article is Hydraulic fracturing. While it is true that Hydraulic fracturing is the umbrella article for all hydraulic fracturing topics, the main article in this case is Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. Beagel (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment. The topic probably deserves its own article (although there may be discussion what is the best title for it). However, at its current stage there is potential issues of WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAP and WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main article is hydraulic fracturing because the focus of this article is additional information and detail about the identities and nature of the specific radionuclides associated with hydraulic fracturing in general. The article also includes some information about the health impact and regulation of the various radionuclides (not just the environmental impact). This information helps to provide a complete picture. This discussion problem is more appropriate for the article's talk page however. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2012 (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.