Talk:Gravity anomalies of Britain and Ireland

Notability

Further to this discussion, I have added a {{notability}} template, just as a starting point to moving the discussion from WP:BISE, where it seems to be going nowhere, back to the article where it can focus on wider issues, rather than the arcane should it have (or not) a reference to the British Isles. My personal take is that, as it stands, this article is non-notable. But possibly with a bit of work, and or the commitment of related projects. It could be made to work. But possibly not in its current form. I'll add more to this in due course. But I just wanted to start the process now. Fmph (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is notable =) BritishWatcher (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a Gravity anomaly as an article, there are no other regional articles and no citations indicate why this area is notable. AFD I think --Snowded ^TALK 11:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A cursory look at google shows research specifically about anomalies of this kind in the British Isles. If it could be OK with a bit of work then that doesn't mean it isn't notable, just that it needs a bit of work. As it is I can't see anything intrinsically wrong with the article as a starting point. Quantpole (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've notified User:Geopersona, who started the article, about this discussion. Quantpole (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Just noticed that they were involved at the BISE discussion so may be aware, but best be on the safe side anyway. Quantpole (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's probably notable in its own way. I mean, we have articles on everything from Climate to Fauna. I don't see a judgement call being made on how gravity anomalies are more or less notable than other such geologic stuff. Of course, more sourcing and a bit of work would do this article well, or it might fail not on topic notability per se, but rather the fact that the notability is not expressed in the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's notable. The fact that there aren't any articles for other regions of the world is completely irrelevant; this is merely the first such article. Don't forget that if the article didn't include the words "British Isles" we wouldn't be having this debate at all. It's yet another example of trying to game the system; article deletion is just one weapon in the armoury of those who wish to rid Wikipedia of the phrase. LevenBoy (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've taken it to AFD. Contribute there if you wish. Fmph (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Following this discussion I've added a few references to provide back-up for the content and will get around to adding more in support of the existing material. Gravity anomalies have been (and continue to be) instrumental in uncovering a host of geological structures, many of them of economic significance where associated with ore bodies or imprortnat in unravelling the geological history of an area. As to the name of the article I really don't care that much whether it refers to British Isles, Britain and Ireland, IONA or the northwest fringe of Europe :-)Geopersona (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

British Isles as the wider geographical area the article is talking about would make the most sense, but the main thing is the article is not deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the renaming of this article to GA of the British Isles. "Britain and Ireland" is ambiguous whereas British Isles isn't. LevenBoy (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)