Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emu Bay shale

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Gareth Hughes 15:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emu Bay shale

Delete, to specific to be encyclopedic. Citizen Premier 21:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article and its links speak for themselves. PAR 23:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the article is none, it's more a small number of facts. one or two sentences and it could be a stub (but thats no reason to delete within a short period of time). --Saperaud 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if it's a Lagerstätte then it's certainly notable. Lots of ordinary geographical/geological features have articles anyway, don't they? Should be recapitalized "Emu Bay Shale" though. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much more needs to be written of course, but there is no reason not to have an article on an individual formation. In fact I plan to create individual articles on the various formations that make up the Colorado Plateau. The reason: I'm tired of repeating the same level of detail for each geology of ... article for the region. Different formations have different extents and crop out in different areas so any one place may share some formations: geology of the Capitol Reef area, geology of the Canyonlands area, and geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area all share some, but not all, formations. Having separate full-sized articles on each formation means that I can have a summary in the geology of ... article that is specific to that particular area (formations have different thicknesses in different areas and are made of different combinations of various members; even those members have area-specific features). --mav 04:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep No reason to delete and it's not too specific, especially not for Wikipedia. --DanielCD 21:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be one of only two sites for Redlichiida. I've expanded a bit and put it in categories to help the right people see it. Definitely needs expansion by someone who knows though. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scott Davis's rewrite as place of geological interest. However, there are two images on the page copyrighted to Dave Simpson which could be of concern for copyright. Has Mr Simpson given his permission for these pictures to be used on Wikipedia? Is there a special place for copyright violations regarding pictures?Capitalistroadster 18:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image page contains "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed.". This text comes from the Wikimedia Commons {{Attribution}}, so I presumed it to be acceptable. I note the corresponding template here suggests to the uploader using {{Cc-by-2.0}} instead. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Simpson has given permission for the use of the image. PAR 23:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep File:Smilie.gifMolotov File:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)

Keep, as one of two sites with fossils of the first arthropods to appear in the fossil record. Average Earthman 20:10, 15 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.