Talk:Knox Dolomite
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merger discussion
editI propose merging to the Knox Supergroup for the following reasons. 1) "Knox Dolomite" is part of the Knox Supergroup and is not even the proper nomenclature for the rock unit being described. 2) The body of this article was a copy and paste from another article by the same author, this is evident because it is describing the "Kerbal Formation" formation not the "Knox Dolomite" 3) There are no valid references for this article. Zigismon (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The main discussion for this is occurring over at Talk:Knox Supergroup, no need to duplicate here. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this article is not merged, the result should be Draftify as this article is clearly not ready for the namespace. Thanks. Wibbit23 (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose draftification. This is the standard article size and layout for geological formations. That you appear to not know this suggests that you are going about random articles trying to find things to edit. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units, while an essay this provides evidence that formations are presumed notable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you notice, there is a caveat of "as described in multiple independent reliable sources" here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- And per WP:NEXIST sources need not already be in an article to help prove notability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- If you notice, there is a caveat of "as described in multiple independent reliable sources" here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually incorrect, this is not the standard layout for any wikipedia article. If you take a look at WP:N(GEO) you would see a geological formation is considered notable with multiple WP:RS. I would appreciate you not making personal assumptions about my editing in a discussion page, as according to wikipedia guidelines my comment was correct. Wibbit23 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Notability#Stratigraphic units, while an essay this provides evidence that formations are presumed notable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose draftification. This is the standard article size and layout for geological formations. That you appear to not know this suggests that you are going about random articles trying to find things to edit. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge no valid references for this article either. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Merge No valid reference and duplicates content found in redirect article. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Comment per previous dicussion at the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black River Formation @Paul H.:, @Choess:, @Jwtmsqeh: Can you please take a look at this. scope_creepTalk
- found some sources that help prove notability:
- there are also offline and paywalled sources I have not checked to see if they are sigcov
MONEYMAKER, BERLEN C. "Occurrences of iron ore minerals in the upper Knox Dolomite in Sullivan County, Tennessee." Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 36.1 (1961): 23-37. Coogan, Alan H., and Mark U. Maki. "RESERVES AND PETROLEUM OCCURRENCE OF THE KNOX DOLOMITE AND SUB-KNOX ROCKS OF NORTHERN OHIO." Circular 38 (1965): 10. and [4] Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)