Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of volcanoes in Brazil

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of volcanoes in Brazil

[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)

No sources, the article is insufficient. It's also being considered for deletion in the portuguese wikipedia. There are no volcanoes in Brazil btw. Holy Goo (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 22:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article shows 3 volcanoes in Brazil, all of which have articles. Valid for list. Ajf773 (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep such "List of..." articles are generally kept provided items listed are independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, in the portuguese wikipedia we have different rules governing lists. Such list wouldn't be kept there. Holy Goo (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a very useful list. People often search for physical features by country and this list (even if it is small) is useful for navigation purposes. An example of a similar list with more information is List of volcanoes in India. This article can also be similarly augmented with additional information.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should never apply policies from one language wiki to another. I was going to vote strong keep, but doing a bit (but not enough) research into extinct volcanoes in Brazil and its islands, I found that the page for Pico do Cabugi states this is the only extinct volcano in Brazil to exhibit its original form. I have added a {{disputed inline}} template to that statement and added a note on its talk page, as a result of this paper which suggests Pico do Cabugi is simply a sub-volcanic neck which has experienced differential erosion, and does not classify as an extinct volcano. Similarly, please read Nova Iguaçu Volcano to discover that as yet there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that it is the site of an extinct volcano. Unfortunately, I've run out of time to investigate Trindade and Martin Vaz.I f there's any doubt, I feel this list should be kept, at least pending any downgrading of volcano status at the three listed pages. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many users use the English-speaking rules in Portuguese and so it continues ... so I believe that the proponent has found that such a list would not be able to continue active in en.wiki, so much so that it was used as an argument in the very discussion of this language in Portuguese.

Despite this, I consider two relevant points to be corrected. (1) There are no active volcanoes in Brazil, it is not necessary to quote "[...] of active and extinct volcanoes." (2) "Nova Iguaçu Volcano" is a supposed volcano, with no scientific evidence, so it should fit in since the little introduction says "active and extinct"?

Finally, I do not consider such a list useful because of the lack of information, it would be eliminated (as it is well under way) in Portuguese, but since I do not know English rules, I prefer not to comment. Le Comte Edmond Dantès ^msg 19:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conde Edmond Dantès (talk • contribs) [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.