Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fossil park


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fossil park

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is a short dictionary definition and unlikely to be expanded. More significantly, I'm not sure the term is in common usage or has an established meaning. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  19:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unesco, USAToday, the Geological Survey of India, and a department of the South African government use the term. We've got Fossil Parks of India and other articles too. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Fossil parks seem to be a notable thing. The article just needs more information, like where and when the first one was founded, how many there are, etc. Redddogg (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (unless radically improved). The term exists, but this article just isn't worth the bytes. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the term exists, references can be found, expand the article, do not delete it.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a legitimate stub with room for expansion. --Itub (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Coment There is no useful content in this article and the list of wls is just a rag-bag of general paleo stuff. How about a redir to the existing article List of Fossil Parks and a better intro paragraph on that? Defining a "fossil park" is pretty trivial and far less interesting than giving examples of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good option. I still think that it is possible (but maybe unlikely to happen) to write an article about fossil parks in general (history, etc.), but in the meantime there is nothing that couldn't be merged into the lead of the list. --Itub (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:05, 9 September 2008 (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.