Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altiplano 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altiplano Plate

Altiplano Plate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Tectonic zone rarely referred as a tectonic plate. Plate tectonics does not apply very well to zones of orogenic deformation, it can explain orogenic deformation but orogenic deformation can itself not be described by plate tectonics. Only one source refer to it. See by yourself in google scholar. Sietecolores (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Apart from similar entries on Spanish and Portuguese WP, all I can find on the interwebs to support the existence of an "Altiplano plate" is this map on Commons. But where is that from? Commons has no "reliable sources" rule. Other mentions of "Altiplano plate" are misprints or mistranslations of "plateau": Altiplano itself, as well as referring to the Andean zone, can be a general term for "plateau". We need input from a geologist: Noyster (talk), 11:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per guidelines: Bird (2003), the only paper about it, is a primary source, secondary sources (like textbooks or literature reviews) are needed to establish notability. Note that there are lot of Wikipedia articles about microplates that are thin on references other than Bird (2003), including Futuna Plate, Banda Sea Plate, Caroline Plate, Maoke Plate, etc., these should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. No opinion on the science itself, but new ideas need to show some evidence of wider commentary by the scientific community before they become Wikipedia articles. Geogene (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: while Bird 2003 is technically a secondary source, it suffers from WP:FRINGE issues. For what it is worth, neither sciendirect.com nor google scholar yields any relevant search results for "Altiplano plate" (WP:GOOGLEHITS applies, but still, one would expect research papers to be indexed online). Tigraan (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of it being taken up by other geologists. Mikenorton (talk) 22:01, 18 December 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.