Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wakulla Volcano

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; as such, I also withdraw my procedural nomination. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wakulla Volcano

Wakulla Volcano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was originally prodded by TheRingess (talk · contribs) with reason:

"The article is about a story that is not notable outside of Florida. There are only local sources, not national"

I personally feel that the two "reasons for deletion" listed by the prodder are flawed, and I am listing here as proscribed in the steps for deletion (contest prod means AfD, in most cases). Currently a procedural nomination - there may be some good reasons to delete this, other than those listed (which I have given my opinion for). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. No valid reason for delete. Local sources are fine and notability in Florida will do. I find the story interesting and worthy of inclusion and am British. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 12:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I see no reason to delete this... it was taught in local history classes here and occasionally makes it way into the local paper for debate. Not only that but people have gone on expeditions looking for it within the past 10 years. It was even noted in the book Weird US books.--Napnet 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I found a geology book which has a good treatment (and firmly attributes it to peat fires, rather than the "myterious" origin that the article apparently advanced). --Dhartung | Talk 04:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Maury 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just needs a little work (like most articles here), but seems to be notable and sourced. -- Satori Son 04:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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.