Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opglabbeek 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 keep. Consensus is that sources exist and can be added Star   Mississippi  03:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Opglabbeek Formation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

De-prodded with a rationale of "sources may exist". Well, we don't build articles on sources "maybe" existing; we build them on ones that do, and I couldn't find jack shit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The source in the article appears reliable and definitive. I don't know where you were searching but there are multiple mentions just in a Google search in English, for example ,,,, and probably many more if one were to search in Belgian/Dutch and/or specialist sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How did I not find any of those? I got 28 hits on regular Google, and nothing but false positives on GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article as it stand is pretty stubby, but as Espresso Addict notes, this is not for lack of a wealth of reliable sources on the formation. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a bit hard to search for with Google Scholar because there is a Mesolithic site conplex with "Opglabbeek" in its name. However, numerous English language reliable sources can found by searching for "Opglabbeek" and "Paleocene" in Google Scholar. More sources can be found using "Opglabbeek" and "paleoceen" in Google Scholar. Paul H. (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly add those sources please? Nothing bugs me more than people saying WP:SOURCESEXIST and then not adding them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that using Google Scholar and the search terms listed above, I found over 30 - 40 publications potentially related to the Opglabbeek Formation, refutes the idea that this article is a case of WP:SOURCESEXIST as numerous sources do exist if a person uses the correct search terms. I do not understand why I need to compile a list citations, when it is easy enough for a person to find and compile the citations for themselves using Google Scholar and the search terms that I provided. In addition, a person, typically can obtain an usable citation for a source by clicking “ or cite in the botttom line of each entry.
 * One example of a source is;
 * Deckers, J. and Matthijs, J., 2017. Middle Paleocene uplift of the Brabant Massif from central Belgium up to the southeast coast of England. Geological Magazine, 154(5), pp.1117-1126.
 * There are many other papers listed by Google Scholar. However, I have better things that I need to do and can do instead of compiling a list of readily searchable citations that interested parties can accomplish just as easily.
 * A sigificant source of information is:
 * Laga, P., Louwye, S., Geets, S. (2001) Paleogene and Neogene lithostratigraphic units (Belgium). Geologica Belgica, 4/1-2:135-152.
 * In it, a person will find a discussion of the Opglabbeek Formation and numerous sources cited for additional information about it. Paul H. (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. Also, take a look at Wikipedia Notability Criteria for Rock-stratigraphic Units. Paul H. (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also look at Wikiproject Geology/Notability. Paul H. (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per Nom's "jack shit" and policies and guidelines for inclusion. See Notability: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. and Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. so here we are at AFD. Maybe a HEY would be in order. One "General source" (Laga, P., Louwye, S., Geets, S. (2001)) does not allow that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source (WP:VERIFY) and if not source copied (possible plagiarism or COPYVIO) it can include original research. We use inline citations so there is text–source integrity. Can anybody argue (probably) that this is a prevention to OR? According to some "Keep" !votes, this may not be important. See "Added comments" -- Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Otr500 is wrong in claiming that "...Laga, P., Louwye, S., Geets, S. (2001) does not allow that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. If a person looks at page 138 of the online PDF file of this Open Access peer-reviewed paper at the link provived, a person finds that multiple publications are cited as sources that provide information about the Opglabbeek Formation. The publications cited by Laga et al. (2001) as sources for the section about Opglabbeek Formation are De Geyter snd Laga (1988b), Felder (1975), Felder et al. (1985), Halet (1932a), Marechal (1993), Marliere (1968), Moorkens (1972a, 1972b, 1982), Schmitz and Stainier (1909), Stainier (1931), Steurbaut (1998) and Vincent (1930). Given that the full citations for these source publications are provided in the reference section of Laga et al. (2001), other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from reliable sources and determine if possible plagerism and copyrights violation occurred. The references cited by Laga et al. (2001) as sources for the section about Opglabbeek Formation refute the unnecessarily profane allegation about there being "jack" available about this formation as being false. These sources refute the "might possibly be a source out there" notion because they demonstrate that there are indeed sources for an wikipedia article available. Unfortunately, I lack access to these publications.
 * I find it revealing that two of the three the editors, who vote keep have a history of editing Wikipedia pages about the Earth Sciences, while none of the the editors, who vote delete lack a history history of editing Wikipedia pages about the Earth Sciences. Paul H. (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Added comments The criteria for nomination are found at Articles for deletion. "D #3" list the requirements. "IF" a search does not produce evidence then an article can be nominated. Those that wish to keep need to show evidence not "many other papers listed by Google Scholar". If we didn't find them then show them. Also, even at that, an examination of sources may still give evidence that they are lacking.
 * We have editors !voting keep because they like it. One editor has better things to do than to attempt to actually present evidence to keep the article. Another found "30 - 40 publications potentially related". There is constantly a battle that some believe that as long as there might possibly be a source out there (somewhere in the universe) that it is alright to ignore notability and sourcing policies and guidelines.
 * An editor created this article, Heers Formation, Hannut Formation, Dongen Formation, and Tienen Formation (maybe others) that is sourced from the same source and in some cases two sources that include one of the same authors, and very likely future "Member" articles (see: Hannut Formation and Dongen Formation and possibly others), and this is fantastic. It should be noted that when contested "Responsibility for providing citations" (Burden) should be followed. Why not include sources such as with Houthem Formation even if listed in the wrong section. At the very least sourcing will prevent possible future AFD's because others "may" be concerned with notability and original research issues. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Otr500 wrote “If we didn't find them then show them. They can be found if a person knows where, e.g. a regional geological lexicon, to look for them. Dismissed out of hand as “a general source”, the wealth of sources that “we did not find” in it were overlooked. The sources for the Opglabbeek Formation cited by Laga et al. (2001) include:


 * De Geyter, G. and Laga. P., I988b. Formatie van Opglabbeek. In Marechal. R. and Laga, P., Yoorstel Iithostratigrafische indeling van het Paleogeen. Belgische Geologische Dienst. Brussel, p. 39-47.


 * Felder, W.M., 1975. Lithostratigrafie van het Boven-Krijt en het Dano-Montien in Zuid-Limburg en het aangrenzende gebied. In Zagwijn, W.H. & Van Staalduinen, C.J., eds., Toelichting bij de geologische overzichtskaarten van Nederland. Rijksgeologische Dienst Haarlem, p. 63-65


 * Felder, P.J., Bless, M.J.M., De Myttenaere, R., Dusar, M., Meesen, J.P.M.T. and Robaszyski, F., 1985. Upper Cretaceous to Early Tertiary deposits (Santonian - Paleocene) in north-eastern Belgium and South Limburg (the Netherlands) with reference to the Campanian and Maastrichtian. Professional Papers – Geological Survey of Belgium, 1985/1 (214): 1-151.


 * Halet, F., 1932b. La geologie du flanc occidental de la vallee de la Meuse a l'ouest de d'enclave de Maestricht d'apres Jes sondages d'etude du Canal Albert. Bulletin de la Societe beige de Geologie, 42: 195-225.


 * Marechal, R., 1993. A new lithostratigraphic scale for the Palaeogene of Belgium. Buller in Belgische Vereniging voor Geologie, 102 ( 1-2): 215-229.


 * Marliene, R., 1968. Projet de legende stratigraphique du Cretace superieur. Professional Papers Belgische Geologische Diensr, 14: 1-4.


 * MOORKENS, Th., 1972b. Foraminiferen uit het stratotype van het Montiaan en uit de onderliggende lagen van de boring te Obourg. (Meteen overzicht van de stratigrafie van het Paleoceen van Belgie). Naruunverenschappe/ijk Tijdschrift, 54: 117-127.


 * MOORKENS, Th., 1982. Formanifera of the Montian stratotype and of subjacent strata in the "Mons well 1969" with a review of the Belgian Paleocene Stratigraphy. Toelichrende Verhandelingen voor de Geologische en Mijnkaarten van Belg ii!, 17 (2): 186 p.


 * Schmitz, G. and Stanier, X., 1909. La geologie de la Campine avant les puits des charbonnages. Deuxieme note preliminaire. Le Landenien, le Heersien et le Montien de la Campine. Bulletin de la Societe beige de Geologie, 23: P-V292-296.


 * Stainier, X., 1931. Le Montien et le Heersien du Hainaut, de la Campine et de la Hollande. Bulletin de la Societe beige de Geologie, 41: 10-35.


 * Steurbaut, E., 1998. High-resolution holostratigraphy of Middle Paleocene to Early Eocene strata in Belgium and adjacent areas. Palaeonrographica, Abt. A, 247 (5-6): 91-156.


 * Even more sources can be found in Google Scholar and other venues. Paul H. (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems pretty obvious to me. We've got sources, now the only thing left to do is add them. (I also have a bit of a pet peeve for people who search for sources and then don't use them.) casualdejekyll  17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I went through and added some of the sources that have been quarreled about here, as well as adding some info, an infobox, and generally sprucing up the page. This article pretty much blows WP:NGEO out of the water. AviationFreak💬 21:01, 28 April 2022 (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.