Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tin Zaouatene volcanic field


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ in the absence of a policy or guideline-backed argument to keep the article. ✗ plicit  03:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Tin Zaouatene volcanic field

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

I am not sure that this meets WP:GNG inclusion criteria. Liégeois mentions it only in a table with relatively few data. GVP removed their entry; when I emailed them for an explanation they said that there is no indication of volcanic rocks in the area and pointed out how sparse the mention on Liégeois is. This source has only a few data, too, with no detailed description. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  11:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * If the experts who decide whether this is a volcanic field have decided that they were mistaken and that there is no such field, surely Wikipedia should follow suit? Special:Diff/1186683457 boggles the mind.  The clear rationale seems to be that the article is false and not supported by the experts any more.  That is unverifiability, and a basic reason for deletion that has been in deletion policy since 2003.  Furthermore: As I have said elsewhere I think the answer to A. B.'s question is that the NERC&hyphen;BGS will follow suit soon enough, since its database, it claims, is a join on the Smithsonian's; and soon Smithsonian record #225002 will be there no more.  It all depends from when it imports and how it handles records that get deleted and no longer join to its own data.  Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - If the databases that constitute our cited sources are deleting it, so should WP. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.