Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fossil sites

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fossil sites

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaeological sites by continent and age, this is just too broad for a single list article. Looking at the article, it isn't even clear what a "fossil site" even is. Many of the listed iems are geological formations, which are typically geographically extensive and therefore not "sites". Listing fossil sites by region is already effectively done by categories (e.g Category:Paleontological sites). Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You only list those notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it a valid navigational list, with more information than a category can have, so more useful. Category:Paleontological sites exist so perhaps a rename is in order to list of Paleontological sites. Dream Focus 16:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dream Focus, it's a good navigational list. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the arguments from the previous discussion about deleting this list still apply (I can’t seem to track down the archive entry for that deletion discussion, despite having reread it least week? Now, the same search brings me to this current discussion. I think the previous one was in 2017). My summary of that and past talk page discussions:

This list is far more useful than a category or set of categories because it has more information than categories can include.
This list can be sorted in multiple ways (primary notability, age, continent or country). From a geology perspective, sorting by time period is often more important/interesting than sorting by region. Some people sort by notability or use the tags to find types of sites. If we split it up, we have to maintain lists or categories for all of combinations of sorts and sub-sorts. (And then we get to argue about where to put the divisions between time periods in the past couple million years).
We have, in fact, made a solid attempt at defining a fossil site. The reason entire formations are listed is because some formations outcrop at many sites in a general region and listing every outcrop is neither feasible nor particularly useful. This has been discussed in the Talk at some length and is mentioned in the list intro. Ideally such formations would each have a listed type locality or primary site, but no one has yet done the research to add those to every previously listed formation. (Sometimes these localities are already in the primary article for a formation, but no one has yet added them here.)
If we actually apply the inclusion criteria discussed in Talk to delete list entries (rather than just to new additions) the list will get tidier. Deleting the list itself would remove a valuable and popular navigational tool.

Elriana (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And mention only those that are notable. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this will be kept (fine with me), but it needs to be cleaned up. I'll say more on the article talk page. - Donald Albury 23:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that cleanup is warranted, but not deletion. Azuredivay (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to delete, three explicit "keeps", and a comment that "cleanup is warranted, but not deletion". How strong do you think consensus has to be? Donald Albury 16:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't think my !vote would be needed here. As noted above, I started a discussion about how to improve the list after the third "Keep". - Donald Albury 16:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However the list is huge, I feel the article needs better division. I do suggest to split the table up per continents. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.