Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilga gas 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__. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wilga gas field

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

Seemingly nothing on the internet mentions this gas field. The book source I removed from this page did not contain the word Wilga at all. Non-notable or hoax. 𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Searched with quotes using this link here and actually everything about it is one goverment document and one legal contract. Not a hoax, but still not notable. 𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (both are primary sources) 𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩𝜩 (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bine Mai created a whole group of articles based upon this 1 source 13 years ago. Xe was very slapdash about the sourcing, getting the publisher, page number, and even embedded searches within the URL wrong.   I've cleaned up a number of them, where the source actually did mention the field on another page.  But this is an exception.  This turns out not to be in the source at all.  This is probably a case of this not being the actual name of the field.  But since the sourcing was so sloppy, I've no idea which of the fields in the source might have been intended here.  I couldn't identify it based upon the figures given, here, either; it not helping that the editor has foolishly substituted primacy of U.S. units for the metric in the original. Uncle G (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * DeleteWP:Geonatural states there should be sufficient verifiable sources to make a standalone article about a natural feature . This is not met. I think we should also think about the fact that since this is a natural feature that is not visible on the surface. You can't go see it. The only visible feature would be the mining operation, and it would be excluded as being too common place to be notable (wp:run-of-the-mill.)James.folsom (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage to merit its own article.—*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 00:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Setting aside GNG issues, this is unreferenced, no interwiki, and I cannot even confirm this exists raising concerns this could be a WP:HOAX. PS. I see a source was removed. The cited page is about the Przemyśl gas field, and search within the book using GBook search feature does not return anything for Wilga, so I stand by my hoax red flag. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:59, 12 January 2024 (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.