Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenotime-(Gd)
- 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. Consensus on keeping vs merging is weak, but the OP is blocked as a sock and there is no appetite for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Xenotime-(Gd) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not meeting Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetimefortheinternet (talk • contribs)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 27. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I find the scarcity of gadolinium minerals, of which this is only the third, an interesting point. I must admit, for the type specimens still showing considerable incorporations of yttrium (Xenotime-(Y)), the actual mineral may appear rather vague. I would wish for someone more versed in geology, on how worthwhile the apparent trend towards definition of endpoint members is actually seen in the research community. Overall, our handling of these particular species of minerals are inconstent. We have quite a few existing articles of species dominated by a specific element, in other cases, they only redirect to the non-specified base name (see Xenotime-(Y)), in the case of Monazite both, an unspecified article exists along most fo the more diligently defined species. In my opinion, that inconsistency should eventually be discussed in the geology project, though. --Tyroxin (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I could not find any guideline for notability criteria of mineral species. While a general notability may seem hard to reach, minerals could be treated similar if not identical to biological species in terms of notability. Individual biological species are considered notable for articles, when the species name is approved (WP:NSPECIES). Minerals also undergo an approval process overlooked by the International Mineralogical Association, although it may even predate the valid publication of a new mineral.
- The mineral in question is an approved mineral, given approval in the last quarter of 2023. The hyphenated naming of rare earth minerals stems from the interchangeability of the rare earth element in the crystal structure. The procedure to append the dominant element inside a mineral species, to refer to theoretical endpoint members, has been in use since its proposal in the 60s. --Tyroxin (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The description of this mineral has only been published this year (2024), so as yet there are no independent extra publications. This could be merged into "xenotime", or become part of a future gadolinium phosphate article. So we should attempt to keep the content via merger. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: A mineral should never be merged into a defined chemical compound as minerals are naturally formed objects, typically contain impurities which may significantly alter the lemma (see the corundum or quartz varieties) or may typically form solid solutions with vaguely defined stochiometric amounts. The latter is especially problematic for rare earth minerals such as the Xenotime in question. --Tyroxin (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep We now have two independent sources, including the official IMA approval that User:Tyroxin has added to the article. Preimage (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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.