Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of volcanic settlements

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|List of volcanic settlements}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_volcanic_settlements Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|List of volcanic settlements}})

Old, orphaned article from 2013 without a single source. Apparently created in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Volcanic settlements, hence the lack of a source.

To me the article sounds like a lot of WP:OR and a violation of WP:LISTN as I've never seen any source that classifies cities by "This category does not include settlements merely threatened by volcanic activity but which are located at a distance away, and not located on the volcanic structure itself", although sources that discuss settlements threatened by volcanoes certainly exist. Some noteworthy omissions such as Honolulu (Honolulu Volcanic Series), too, and some of the things mentioned are volcanoes not settlements.

This was discussed (briefly) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes#List of volcanic settlements where the suggestion was made to repurpose it into a list of settlements threatened by volcanoes. I don't think this would work a) this list is unsourced and much of the content wouldn't apply to a "cities threatened by volcanoes" list (and a lot of content that belongs in such a list is not here) and b) a list of cities threatened by volcanoes would probably violate WP:SALAT as it would be quite long unless we picked quite arbitrary inclusion criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Does not pass WP:LISTN. No evidence of notability for this subject in my WP:BEFORE, let alone for this subject as a list. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The exact scope of the list may need work per WP:IMPERFECT but, to support this, there seem to be enough sources which discuss such places, e.g. [https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-volcano-california-20181025-story.html LA Times] and ''[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6f6aAAAAQBAJ Dangerous Neighbours]. Andrew D. (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• : Er, these sources discuss volcanoes threatened by cities, not volcanoes on cities, except in the context of the former criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

::::To pass WP:LISTN it's important that they discuss the cities/towns as a list, and provide list inclusion criteria (there needs to be a proper definition of what should be listed, since theoretically every city in the world can be threatened in some way by a volcano). [https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2018/5140/sir20185140.pdf The LA Times Article is based on a USGS paper listing volcanoes, not cities], and as such does not provide proof of notability to cities/towns per se. Even where cities are discussed in the LA Times article, it describes volcanoes as potentially threatening the entire state (e.g., by impacting power and water supplies). There are no list inclusion criteria in the LA Times article. The book reference discusses a number of cities threatened by volcanoes but, as far as can be seen from the chapter headings the cities listed include Mexico City, Auckland, and Manila - it is hard to find any list inclusion criteria in this if it includes cities dozens of miles from any volcano, and anyway a single reference is not enough to show notability. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

:::::"To pass WP:LISTN it's important that they discuss the cities/towns as a list". To be precise, that's not what LISTN says; it says sources should discuss "the grouping or set in general", not as a list. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete A book discussing something related to the topic does not make this specific list notable. Andrew D's links definitely would support expansion of Volcanic hazards perhaps but it's absurd to assume that means this list should be kept. He did none of the actual comparison of the contents that FOARP did. This does not pass LISTN. Reywas92^Talk 18:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The source is poor and fails WP:LISTN. Syndicater (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (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.