Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwardsville Formation

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 speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardsville Formation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is insufficient WP:SIGCOV of this geological formation for a standalone article under WP:GNG. A stable redirect to Borden Formation#Edwardsville Formation has been repeatedly undone, but despite ample time the editor has done nothing to add additional sources or expand the stub. I propose an AfD consensus to firmly establish the previous redirect, not to preclude expansion in the future should SIGCOV be produced. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Indiana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The redirect was not stable, it was reverted once thus contested, you then reverted back to the redirect with an invalid reason and instead of discussing it at the talk page, you have decided to take it to afd. This is the standard article size and layout for geological formations. That you appear to not know this suggests that you are just going to random pages to "curate" without appropriate knowledge. Also afd is not about article quality. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also my revert of the redirect was not contested by the person I reverted. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NGEO is an SNG, thus as a geological formation this meets NGEO as an SNG, GNG is not necessary. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I do not visit "random pages to 'curate' without appropriate knowledge" and I would ask you to strike that remark. New page reviewers may patrol in whatever categories they wish; I have been focusing on the list of unreviewed articles created by blocked users (an area that tends to include a greater share of articles requiring reviewer attention), and that's why this one turned up. As for whether stub length is standard for geological formations, that appears to be untrue (see New Albany Shale, Pocono Formation, Burlington Limestone, Surprise Canyon Formation, Bear Gulch Limestone, Huntley Mountain Formation, Madison Group, Rockwell Formation, Mauch Chunk Formation, and the page I propose redirecting to, Borden Formation, just to look at Mississippian formations in the U.S.). It is also an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If the sourcing is truly limited only to supporting a permanent stub, then the subject fails the WP:NOPAGE test of WP:GNG: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page .... Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramp Creek Formation, Muldraugh Formation, Salem Limestone, Ste. Genevieve Limestone, Warsaw Formation, Keokuk Limestone, Fern Glen Formation, Pierson Limestone, Reeds Spring Formation, all Mississippian formations in the US, all stubs. And to show that it's not just a US thing Meledis Formation. Stub articles form the majority of geological formation articles. And WP:GNG is not necessary when an SNG is met. Hence why SNGs exist. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Regarding the SNG claim, the SNG is unclear about whether geological formations are geographical landforms and thus subject to the SNG. If there's a demonstrated consensus that NGEO applies to geological formations, then I will withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently providing examples of the majority=OSE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units, while an essay this provides evidence that formations are presumed notable.

As for sources I just did a Google scholar search and came up with [1], [2], [3] and [4] within a couple of seconds. Obvious WP:GNG is met. Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those links is broken, and I reviewed the others in my BEFORE search. As I mentioned upthread, NOPAGE offers additional considerations if an article cannot be built out beyond a permanent stub. You have not addressed this part of the argument. However, taking the WikiProject essay on notability you offered as representing some degree of consensus on the application of NGEO, I’ll withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2024 (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.