Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Cruz 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. It appears this can be addressed editorially, as per the discussion.  Sandstein  06:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Santa Cruz Formation

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

The "Santa Cruz Formation" in Argentina is the clear primary topic here (and is currently being worked on, see User:Magnatyrannus/Santa Cruz Formation). Neither of the other two units labelled here has ever been known under the name "Santa Cruz Formation", making the disambig unnecessary per WP:ONEOTHER: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdraw this page can easily be moved to (disambiguation) when the actual Santa Cruz Formation article is created. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)}}
 * ...when the actual Santa Cruz Formation article is created ...
 * But there are two Santa Cruz Formation articles to create! Even though the Argentininan and Philipininan units might have the same or similar facies or fauna stage, I am uncertain that they can be mapped as a single unit ....
 * Certainly, splitting the Santa Cruz list into "Formation" and "see also" is a technique that really hasn't been done with geologic classifications, and I am concidering undoing the edit. This split presumes the modifier to Santa Cruz is a reliable or standard means of distinguishing between geologic units with the same name. If the type name is assigned a range of ranks, we do not make a disambiguation to list the ranks. The ultimate example is the Dakota, which is formally classified as Dakota Group, Dakota Formation, Dakota Member, and Dakota Sandstone across its range — we don't list the different ranks of the same strata in a disambuation. But, in this case, all four geologic classifications are valid for separate articles as they are named for different Santa Cruzes in different juristictions, which seems to be a peculiarity of units in the old Spanish colonies.
 * What is generally done with geologic units (wrt disambiguation) is to create entries in the "broad topic" disambiguation (examples being Ogallala Formation, Greenhorn Limestone, Purgatory Conglomerate, Wellington Formation, and Cottonwood Limestone).
 * IIUC, "See also" in disambiguation pages is generally used for links to other disambuation pages. IveGoneAway (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Philippines Formation is extremely obscure by comparison and is likely of little interest to the general reader. I propose Merging' the current Santa Cruz Formation disambiguation page into a "geology" section of Santa Cruz, which is what I probably should have done to begin with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree A geology section on a dab is usually unnecessary and I tend to indent a single geological unit entry under the location it is named for, but a geology section might be best for international units having the same base name, but for different locations having the same name. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Disambiguations. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid dab, there are multiple topic known as "Santa Cruz Formation". I think "Santa Cruz Mudstone" is acceptable as a synonym. If the draft on the formation in Argentina becomes an article and is the primary topic, then this page can be moved to Santa Cruz Formation (disambiguation).
 * Delete. Two redlinks, and two bluelinks one of which fails WP:DABMENTION, is not a valid dab, regardless of how ambiguous or not this phrase might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid international dab. I don't know how to access the deletion reasons for Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina, but it is pretty easy to see that it is real and notable: "One of the best-known faunal assemblages [that is, the Santacrucian] that characterizes the past ecosystems from South America comes from the Santa Cruz Formation in Argentina." and should not have been deleted for notability if that was the case. Hemiauchenia suggests the article was draftified? Please link? The same case with Santa Cruz Formation, Philippines, however, notibilty is not so easy for me in a few minutes. If I could access the deleted page, that might be another matter. At worst, the Philippines case is a very easy to understand duplication of the name, and maybe even the age and fauna. Yes, keep, even with the red links which should be resolved either through replacement articles or redirects. IveGoneAway (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The original Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina was deleted for being created by a sockpuppet account. The current WIP version has nothing to do with the previously deleted version, which I can't access. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, before the ban, T' created the dab with the intent of starting/completing the Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina (they did that sort of frameworking). So, you are saying
 * (1) the "original" Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina, created after the ban is deleted for sockpuppetry (regardless of validity of content (OK, if that is policy));
 * and you are also saying
 * (2) there is a "current WIP version" of the "Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina", which I am hoping that you can link for me.
 * Whether or not there is a draft started, IIUC, Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina is a notable topic.
 * IveGoneAway (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is not much call for geology sections in dabs, as the location names are supposed to be unique, but there are legitimate collisions in the namespace between USA and Latin America, especially. That said, this is probably the best solution for such cases. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep dabs direct us to where we can find information on a topic on WP - they don't need to have articles. 2 entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION and 2 valid see alsos. Boleyn (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was going to say that we don't make dabs for the sole purpose if accommodating redlinks, but it turns out that the current situation is exactly covered at MOS:DABRED; Santa Cruz Formation, Argentina is the "Flibbygibby (architecture)" example, and thus wanted. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Santa Cruz Formation (disambiguation) for now.  Once the article has been moved, or if the work in my userspace draft is complete, then the main article can be created. --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 23:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, too. Thanks for working on the article. IveGoneAway (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @IveGoneAway: Now the draft is ready for mainspace. --Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 00:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thumbs up The article looks fine to post to me. I am urged to say that the prose and flow of the lead is both excellent and conventional for geological units. My coverage is stratigraphy, lithography, and history, and from those points, the infobox is just fine. Aside from dabbling in a little early-late Cretaceous benthic fauna, I have nothing to contribute on paleontology review. I'll take Hemiauchenia as covering that. I would like pictures of the unit, though, ... I guess I'm closer .... IveGoneAway (talk) 01:39, 26 November 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.