Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandfall

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. There is a lot of really good discussion here as to what to do with this and similar pages, the discussion should continue on the appropriate talk pages. The only consensus that I can see is that the information belongs should be redirected somewhere and not deleted. J04n(talk page) 13:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandfall

[edit]
Sandfall (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)

WP:NN topic. Really just a WP:COATRACK for a fantastic photo. I think Jacques Cousteau may have coined this term in reference to a phenomenon he filmed near Cabo San Lucas, but I can't find any evidence that the term ever caught on. The referenced University of Chicago paper isn't about this topic, but about fluid dynamics. Pburka (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article and it wasn't written around the image. There are many images on the web depicting the process, but not in public domain. I think calling in a geology and landform specialist might be a good idea. As an aside @ Pburka, I don't think it's proper to alter the content of an article and then to nominate it for deletion. Your removal of the video references touches on a discussion which is presently being held here, and is about reliable sources. Please add to the debate. Paul venter (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links I removed: [1][2][3]. None of these have any reasonable claim of being a reliable source. Pburka (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the debate currently taking place at [4] as suggested above, you will see that visual material does not fall under unreliable sources. Paul venter (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At best those links are suitable as external links because they don't provide support for any statement in the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really don't understand what you mean - #1 and #3 clearly illustrate sand falling over edges, while #2 shows a submarine sandfall. Just how does that not support any statement in the article? Paul venter (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources convincingly demonstrate that sand falls in the presence of gravity. They don't demonstrate that there is a notable and recognized phenomenon called a sandfall. Pburka (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could visual material possibly "demonstrate that there is a notable and recognized phenomenon called a sandfall"? These visual sources were added to clarify the process, not to provide forensic evidence about notability or taxonomy. Paul venter (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I would have said if I had noticed the question! RockMagnetist (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now Delete - yeah, after a fairly extensive search I've not found anything by way of significant coverage. There's a bit about similar underwater phenomena (by which I mean a number of passing mentions and photos in dive magazines and sea floor geology books) but not much about the subject described in the article. Happy to consider any sources anyone can find but for now... Stalwart111 06:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my note to neutral given Paul's comments. I have no problem holding my !vote until someone with some geo/sci knowledge can evaluate source availability. Paul; would be interested in your comments on the underwater variation that I was able to find a few things for. Are they the same? Stalwart111 10:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - the article states "The same process occurs in submarine environments such as Cabo San Lucas, driven by water currents and gravity." Paul venter (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, was aware the article said so, but I couldn't find anything to link the two. But if geo/sci editors tell me it is so then I think we should do what we can to find some sources. If we can't, so be it. I see you've suggested a redirect, which might be a good solution. Stalwart111 10:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The process exists, is remarkable, and certainly worthy of a WP article. It may well be the subject of papers and theses under a different name. A geologist would be able to help. Even so, I don't think it should be deleted after only a cursory search. Paul venter (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources relate to the article so fails WP:NRSNVNA. Per nom it may be worthy of an article but no editor has so far been able to do so DavidTTTaylor (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Geology & Mineralogy defines "sandfall" as equivalent to slip face, the downwind side of a dune. My impression from a search of Google Scholar is that the term is also used as a one-time event or a collection of episodic events, so a waterfall is not a good analogue. Also, I think the picture of Antelope Canyon is illustrating a sun beam, not a sandfall. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A waterfall may be perennial, flow only after rains, flow after ice- or snowmelt and generally behave exactly like a sandfall Paul venter (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul: I think that RockMagnetist is saying that, in the literature, a sandfall is more like a landslide. Do you have a reference that says a sandfall is like a waterfall? Pburka (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a sandfall is more like a rockfall - the main difference being that wind can be one of the driving forces. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that slipface currently redirects to Barchan, too. If we redirect sandfall to Dune, we should probably do the same for both slipface and slip face. --Mark viking (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sand fall too - I see it written that way in many of the sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sand and create a subsection - Difficult to see that 'Sandfall' is a synonym of 'Dune' or 'slipface'. 'Sandfall' is more of a process than a landform - a dune is simply one of the many places where it may be seen, in the same way that a waterfall may occur on a mountain, but is not synonymous with it. Paul venter (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul: Here's the definition RockMagnetist is talking about: McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms 6E. We now have a reliable source saying that a sandfall is a slip face, so the redirect suggested by RockMagnetist seems reasonable. Pburka (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
slip face [′slip ‚fās](geology) The steeply sloping leeward surface of a sand dune. Also known as sandfall. If this were part of a WP article, I for one would be asking for references, and insist on knowing where the compiler got the idea that "slip face" equals "sandfall". Even large reference sources normally accepted as 'reliable' contain rubbish items. Paul venter (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Barchan (or Slip face) or Dune seem incorrect to me, as in those phenomena sand is only falling over sand. ("Sandfall, by way of contrast, I think involves sand falling over some other substance, especially rock.) "Sandfall" could be redirected to Sand with a subsection, as Paul Venter suggests. I am also not sure that Sandfall should not have its own article, but sufficient sourcing seems to be lacking. It seems logical to me that especially underwater "sandfalls" should be common. I don't think the picture of Antelope Canyon should be used unless we can find some indication that "sandfall" is seen in it. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your reasoning leading to Sandfall's having its own article, and with the article's needing a better image to illustrate the process. Paul venter (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, based on the sources I have seen, the primary meaning is related to dunes. A {{redirect}} tag on Dune could point people to other uses. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITEXISTS. Pburka (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • three references to morphological features of dunes:
  • one related to deposition downwind of a dune:
  • three related to wave deposition on beaches:
  • Two related to sand ejected from a volcano
  • One about a meteorological event, probably related to dust from the Sahara
  • Several related to various engineering and physics experiments (e.g., sand pouring through a funnel)
Many of the uses (including those related to beach deposition) appear casual, which is why I consulted a dictionary to see if someone considers it a technical term. If I search on sandfall dune, I get "about 200 results", many of which support the dune interpretation; but there are also plenty that just refer to rates of deposit. No search I have tried retrieves anything like the phenomenon discussed by this article. To the extent the sources support anything, they support the dune definition; but the mentions are bordering on trivial, and I don't see how an article could be built from them. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still say redirect because the only well supported definition is the one for dunes; and the equivalent term "slip face" is mentioned four times in that article. A statement should be added to Dune saying that sandfall is a synonym for slip face. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now, then, with appropriate disclaimers as suggested above and with no restriction on recreation over redirect if/when clearer and more substantive sources can be found. If better sources can be found for the phenomena detailed in the article (in the future) then it can always be forked out again. Stalwart111 00:28, 20 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandfall&oldid=1082627031"