Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black River Formation

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Black River Formation}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Black River Formation}})

No effective references. Reason given for revert is neither a policy or a guidelines and duplicates content from in Black River Group. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

:Keep deletion should be based on Notability not article quality Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. As has been told to me before, sources need not already be in the article to prove notability, heck I've nominated articles for deletion that end up being kept based on sources not in the article. Here are some sources for notability: [https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/books/edited-volume/393/chapter/3797554], [https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/151508163.pdf], [https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/96/7/1369/133235]. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

::I'm not arguing the article is not notable. There is another article in much more detail that this article is duplicating, based on your sprurious read of non-policy or even guidelines. Yes that is true, but not when the article is under review. We don't leave the thing blank for the reader to somehow magically divine whether the article is true or not or is even if its encyclopeadic. It is really sloppy practice not to reference it correctly. scope_creep^Talk 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Your deletion argument is about quality, which is literally listed on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

:Merge This article can be merged into the Black Rock Group as this is the same stratigraphic unit as it is known in in United States. there is an abundance of published papers that can be found in Google Scholar for "Black Rock River Formation". Paul H. (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

::The Black River Formation is the name of only part of the Black River Group. This article just needs expansion, not merging. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

:Merge to Black River Group. One of the sources there notes that "Black River Formation", "Black River Group", and "Black River Limestone" are synonymous. No evidence or sources have been presented to justify the assertion that the Formation constitutes only a part of the Group. While the lack of current development in the article doesn't render it subject to deletion for lack of notability, it is a factor to be considered under WP:PAGEDECIDE, and I think merger is a suitable outcome under those criteria, which could be reconsidered if or when the content about this topic is expanded. Choess (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Choess}}{{ping|Paul H.}} I didn't see that about the synonymous terms. There is about 6 other micro articles in this series. I will check if any of the others have that equality. If not they will be heading for Afd. Ideally they would all be a merge result as they are very similar and based on false premise. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

:::That source, literally shows that the Black River Formation is the term used for the section in Michigan only (in the US at least), hence its name for a part of the group (a geographical part is still part of the group). Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

::::I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. You're saying that the BRG and the BRF are both the same stratum, but we should have different articles for them because the stratum is only called the BRF when it enters the borders of Michigan? Choess (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::The BRF is the name given to the thin undifferentiated sections of BRG, so its not the name changes at the border essentially, its the name given to a part that is undifferentiated due to thickness rather than geographical area, its just that that matches up to being only in Michigan. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Choess}}{{ping| scope_creep}}The details of "Black River" usage can be found in the "National Geologic Map Database Geolex — Unit Summary" for [https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/Units/BlackRiver_498.html "Geologic Unit: Black River"]. "Black River Group" is used in six states (NY, PA, WV VA, IN,and VT); "Black River Limestone" is used in seven states (IL, IN, MI, NY, OH, PA, and WV); and "Black River Formation" is used in one state (MI); and in Quebec. Notice that in some cases, the two different names are in usage in the same state. The usage of other stratigraphic units can be checked in [https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/search "National Geologic Map Database Geolex Search"].

:::
Canada has an [https://weblex.canada.ca/weblexnet4/weblex_e.aspx online geological lexion of stratigraphic nomenclature called "WEBLEX Canada"]. It lists [https://weblex.canada.ca/html/001000/GSCC00053001449.html "Black River Group" as the accepted usage and shows it has the same type locatity] as the "Black River Group", "Black River Formation", and "Black River Limestone". Paul H. (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

::::That is a really handy. I would struggled to interpret it even if I found these sites. Would it be ok to ping yourselves to take a look at the other 5 or 6 articles, save them going Afd, maybe do a merge request on each of them? It save a lot of time. scope_creep^Talk 16:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

:::::Yes it is fine to ping me. I would be glad to take a look. Paul H. (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

::::::The BRF is the name given to the thin undifferentiated sections of BRG, so its not the name changes at borders, its the name given to a part that is undifferentiated due to thickness rather than geographical area, its just that that matches up to being only in Michigan (in the US) and parts of Quebec. Thus the names aren't actually synonymous just used for different parts of the group. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• redirect and merge to Black River Group per everything stated above. jwtmsqeh (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Black River Group, no real reason to expand this when it could be included as a subsection. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.