Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonmineral

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. slakr^\ talk / 13:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonmineral

Nonmineral (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)

Nominating per proposals at the article's talk page by two only editor who has contributed there. In 2007, Zimbres wrote: "(sic) "A Nonmineral (Mineralogy) is a substance found in a natural environment that does not satisfy the definition of a Mineral and is not even a Mineraloid. Many nonminerals are mined and have industrial or other uses similar to minerals, such as jewelry"

What is this? There is no scientific sense in this definition! There is no significance in the term "nonmineral"!

Things that are found in a natural environment and doesn't satisfy the definition of a Mineral and is not even a Mineraloid: Air, birds, trees, mankind, light, waves, soil, worms, are nonminerals? Is this correct? Perhaps God would be a nonmineral too!

I propose the deletion of this page."

In January this year Akburnham wrote: "I also agree that this page should be deleted. It is fundamentally inconsistent with another wikipedia page--that of mineraloids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineraloid). That page gives the following list of mineraloids:

Amber, non-crystalline structure, organic Jet, non-crystalline nature, organic (very compact coal) Native mercury, liquid (IMA/CNMNC valid mineral name) Lechatelierite, nearly pure silica glass Limonite, a mixture of oxides Lapis Lazuli, a mixture of minerals Obsidian, volcanic glass - non-crystalline structure, a glass and quartz mixture Opal, non-crystalline silicon dioxide, a mix of minerals (IMA/CNMNC valid mineral name) Pearl, organically produced carbonate Petroleum, liquid, organic Pyrobitumen, amorphous fossilized petroleum (noncrystalline, organic) Ebonite, vulcanized natural or synthetic rubber (organic); not a mineral due lack of crystalline structure Tektites, meteoritic silica glass

But the "Nonmineral" page lists the following materials as not qualifying as mineraloids, even though they are listed as "Mineraloids" in the page above. Amber, organic, non-crystal structure. Mercury, a liquid at normal temperatures, but often classified as a mineral [1] [2]. Obsidian, usually not considered a mineral due to non-crystal structure. Petroleum, organic and liquid. Pyrobitumen, an organic, nonhomogeneous, non-crystal structure.

It is possible that words can have multiple meanings, but if so, a Wikipedia article should reflect that multiplicity. But to have different pages with conflicting definitions is unacceptable.

As a nominator I fully support arguments provided by these editors. This article is unsourced, confusing and contradicting to other (sourced) articles. Also WP:OR may be the issue. Beagel (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unreferenced and incorrect WP:OR. -- 101.119.28.31 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw^talk 23:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

---

• Delete. I don't claim much expertise on this topic area, but this is unsourced and it doesn't look it can be sourced by the few editors who have tried, so WP:CHALLENGE applies to the whole page at this point. Based on my searches, it seems nonmineral is an arbitrary substance defined as such by some law (e.g. sand and gravel were declared nonmineral in a US law [1]) rather than some generally accepted scientific terminology. I'm not sure that would get us much beyond a WP:DICTDEF, but in any case, this page would need to be completely rewritten if that use of "nonmineral" is the common one. Another book seems to give an economics-based definition, where "nonmineral" seems to be anything from solar energy to timber and fisheries [2]! Yet a third book defines nonmineral as precisely C, H, N, and O in the field of nutrition [3]. So perhaps this needs to be some kind of WP:CONCEPTDAB, but WP:TNT applies at this point to the present content. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Merge. As the original author of this article, I suggest that its contents be merged with the Mineraloid article. Many amendments have been made by other editors over the years, suggesting it has some value, and almost all substances are linked to other wikipeida articles, thus eroding the claim of non-referencing. At the time there seemed to be a need to distinguish some substances that might erroneously be accepted as minerals from actual minerals. Perhaps, if this merge is done correctly, the need for this article is greatly diminished. Thanks, User:Stepp-Wulf

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.