Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miocene fauna of north - eastern Paratethys


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Miocene fauna of north - eastern Paratethys

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is just a brief list of fossils found in an area and doesn't indicate their significance or notability, thus failing WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not the most exciting article on Wikipedia, but sourced. Seems no reason for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep. There are two journal articles about the subject which makes it notable and significant. De728631 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I don't think the article's references strictly pass the General Notability Guidelines, but I really don't see the harm in letting this referenced article survive. It isn't the sort of topic that is going to generate a lot of useless or promotional articles, and while Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article seems encyclopedic enough to keep. Monty  845  08:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, but recreate within broader article - The information in the article appears to be accurate and encyclopedic, however, fossils are an extremely common topic in WP, and this article does not conform to the WP convention for how fossils are documented. Looking at the category Category:Miocene animals that this article belongs to:  it is the only article of its kind (single era; single locality). In addition, the WP convention is to use the word "animals" not "fauna".  Since the fossil community of  WP has not established this class of article, this one-off article should not exist.  The Paleontology project should weigh-in here and contribute their vision of how this info should be presented in WP.  My suggestion is that a broader-scope article be created, e.g. Miocene animals of Asia and the info be placed in there (looking at Category:Miocene animals helps clarify this).  --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - referenced material of scientific merit. I have no objection to a merger as proposed by Noleander, but if performed, the article history should be preserved, making deletion not appropriate. Lady  of  Shalott  18:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the strata probably belong to a specific Formation which has a name. It would be this that the article should be listed under. Something analogous to Hell Creek Formation. I haven't looked in detail yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (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.