477:
expanded and properly sourced is a "personal attack"? Or perhaps pointing out the categorical claims in those many prods that there is no recent mention of the topic (that was in the first batch of prods), only to switch later to there is no significant mention, or no notability, or no mention with subject in the title, etc, which most times turned out to be not the case, after a bit of research on my part? Maybe if you tried once (only once!) to improve one of these articles, instead of constantly criticizing them, you'll get a better appreciation of the work involved in creating such content, and become more open-minded about what "significant coverage" means in this context, where history, economy, geography, geology, technology, politics, etc mix in not always the most straightforward way. Of course, a currently highly productive gas field or oil field opened in the last decade or two will have much more coverage than, say, those
Transylvanian gas fields that opened before WWI and had their glory days in the 1930s or the 1950s (when there was no internet, and written mentions from those times are almost always not readily available, at least not through a banal Google search), though almost all those gas fields are still productive to this day. Speaking of wiki guidelines, maybe
454:
tag the article so that others can review it. I'm not always perfect on getting it tagged, but I try because it's important to alert others about it. Then I do a WP:before myself, if I find anything remotely significant I move on and leave the tag so that others know to evaluate it. If its extremely obvious that there is no significant coverage I wikipedia boldly propose it for deletion. It's not true that this process doesn't have oversight because the tags are publicized and others can double check me. Turgidson has been removing the sig coverage tags inappropriately because he doesn't understand what significant coverage is. Because of this when I was wrapping up on the
Romanian ones I couldn't always tell which were left to be checked. I checked all those again, and where the first time I checked that particular one I had skipped proposing deletion because of that source, the second time I didn't see it.
287:
Târnăveni
Nitrogen Plant). This is attested in several references that I added, including a CIA report from 1950 dedicated to the factory and the nearby Târnăveni gas field, which supplied gas through a pipeline for running the factory. As I also mentioned in the article, this gas was used to produce for the first time in Romania (in 1922) hydrogen from water and gas. Despite the above (rather ungracious) claim, this is not in an effort to make the article longer, but rather, to add historically relevant context for the nascent natural gas industry in interwar Romania, which by the late 1930s had reached third place worldwide (after the US and the Soviet Union) in natural gas production, with the Târnăveni gas field playing a significant role in the process.
238:
be stand alone subjects. An editor, added some sources that are not significant coverage of the topic and in some cases don't cover the subject at all. In an effort to make the article longer the editor added other subjects that now occupy more space in the article than the original subject. This was because there are almost no sources about the gas field available. The editor then removed the prod tag. None of the current sources on the article, nor any that I can find say this gas field stands out from the rest as particularly important. And, there are no reliable sources that are written specifically about this subject.
408:, regarding the onshore gas field with the largest proven reserves in Romania, dubbed by the then-PM as "the most important discovery" since the fall of communism, etc, which was characterized (before my work to seriously research the topic, and expand and improve the article) as "Not sustained coverage, non notable per WP:N" by someone who claims expertise in finding references to articles in this topic, deciding what's notable and what is not, what gets significant coverage and what does not, all sprinkled with snide comments like those
416:. All done with some artificial 1-week deadlines, which first were easy to miss, since I only very rarely edited articles on gas fields before, leading to some being completely gone before I could even look at them, especially with mass prods, ADFs, and deletions going on within dozens of articles at a time. Hardly the way to go, in my opinion.
323:
articles written specifically about the gas field without merely mentioning it in passing. OR they are sources that say something like "this is the greatest most important gas field in ...." You may have noticed none of the sources say this. The name of this gas field never occurs in the title of any reliable source.
237:
I brought this to AFD because I proposed this for deletion due to how easy it is to demonstrate this subject has no significant coverage. Which is to say, no reliable sources say this natural feature is important. WP:Geoland confers no special status for natural features and they need to meet WP:N to
453:
I was going to let that personal attack go, but realized I should probably explain for the benefit of participants in the AFD. When I start a WP:before on these stubs, I check the given references for significance and remove any dead ones. If none of those references are significant coverage, I also
322:
How do you still not get this, have you not noticed that none of the sources are actually written about the subject of the gas field. Show me which one specifically says this gas field is an important subject. And, wrong individual sources are what confer significant coverage. They do this by being
286:
As I indicated in my summary when I removed the delete template after working on improving this article and saving it from the chopping block, the Târnăveni gas field is a historically significant gas field, which has supplied natural gas to the oldest and largest chemical factory in
Romania (the
476:
a personal attack, but pointing that out is? Or maybe pointing out this relentless drive for mass deletions of
Romanian gas fields articles, without affording me (or perhaps also other editors who may want to join in) a decent amount of time to assess the situation and see whether they can be
383:
article, with 20 references by now, is being relentlessly criticized and eyed for the chopping block. So yes, I may create an article of that sort at some point when I get some free time, but not under these conditions, which are not at all conducive to positive development of
Knowledge (XXG)
366:
in the interwar, its role in the war effort in WWII, its further expansion in the communist era, only to be closed a few years ago. But I spent too much time already trying to expand and source these articles on the
Romanian gas fields, with even the first and famous one being
471:
So asserting that I have no idea what
Knowledge (XXG) policies and guidelines on sourcing are (after 52K edits over 17 years of wiki editing), or suggesting I better try shopping a Romania-related article missing from ro.wiki to see how it fares there (!) is
206:
361:
I agree, the chemical factory deserves an article by itself. It has a pretty fascinating history, starting with production of chemical munitions in WWI (for the
Central Powers), and pioneering the development of the
200:
163:
259:
263:
136:
131:
95:
140:
110:
348:, why not rename and expand this article to cover them? You've dug so deep into history here it seems a shame to waste the other stuff you turned up. --
123:
255:
221:
188:
90:
83:
17:
363:
511:
490:
463:
439:
425:
393:
356:
332:
314:
296:
275:
247:
182:
65:
127:
104:
100:
178:
528:
40:
167:
228:
380:
59:
119:
71:
430:
So I missed one, big deal. It takes more than one anyway. The goal is to discuss the merits of this article.
52: as to whether to keep as is or re-scope and expand. That decision, however, does not require admin action.
194:
507:
459:
435:
328:
271:
243:
478:
54:
36:
306:- collectively the refs fully support the article. No one ref by itself gives significant coverage. --
486:
421:
389:
292:
214:
503:
455:
431:
324:
267:
239:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
523:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
524:
482:
417:
385:
345:
288:
157:
351:
344:
the nearby chemical operations are more historical and have better sourcing. @
309:
519:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
413:
409:
405:
376:
372:
368:
153:
149:
145:
213:
481:
would be relevant in better assessing the situation.
379:) being pursued for deletion, while another one, the
227:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
531:). No further edits should be made to this page.
254:Note: This discussion has been included in the
8:
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
253:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
502:AB's suggestion is acceptable to me.
24:
371:, or arguably the top two ones (
364:Petrochemical industry in Romania
258:lists for the following topics:
96:Introduction to deletion process
1:
512:23:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
491:21:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
464:18:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
440:16:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
426:05:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
404:The cherry on the top being
394:23:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
357:22:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
333:23:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
315:22:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
297:21:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
276:19:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
248:19:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
66:14:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
548:
521:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
381:Zau de Câmpie gas field
168:edits since nomination
369:proposed for deletion
84:Articles for deletion
120:Târnăveni gas field
72:Târnăveni gas field
406:this deletion prod
278:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
539:
355:
354:
313:
312:
256:deletion sorting
232:
231:
217:
161:
143:
81:
64:
62:
57:
34:
547:
546:
542:
541:
540:
538:
537:
536:
535:
529:deletion review
350:
349:
308:
307:
174:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
60:
55:
53:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
545:
543:
534:
533:
515:
514:
496:
495:
494:
493:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
399:
398:
397:
396:
338:
337:
336:
335:
300:
299:
280:
279:
235:
234:
171:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
544:
532:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
497:
492:
488:
484:
480:
475:
470:
467:
466:
465:
461:
457:
452:
449:
448:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
402:
401:
400:
395:
391:
387:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
360:
359:
358:
353:
347:
343:
340:
339:
334:
330:
326:
321:
318:
317:
316:
311:
305:
302:
301:
298:
294:
290:
285:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
230:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
177:
176:Find sources:
172:
169:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
520:
518:
504:James.folsom
499:
479:WP:RECENTISM
473:
468:
456:James.folsom
450:
432:James.folsom
341:
325:James.folsom
319:
303:
283:
268:James.folsom
240:James.folsom
236:
224:
218:
210:
203:
197:
191:
185:
175:
77:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
201:free images
61:Mississippi
525:talk page
483:Turgidson
418:Turgidson
386:Turgidson
384:content.
346:Turgidson
289:Turgidson
260:Geography
37:talk page
527:or in a
164:View log
105:glossary
39:or in a
500:Comment
469:Comment
451:Comment
342:Comment
320:Comment
264:Romania
207:WP refs
195:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
179:Google
141:delete
352:A. B.
310:A. B.
222:JSTOR
183:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
508:talk
487:talk
460:talk
436:talk
422:talk
414:here
412:and
410:here
390:talk
377:here
375:and
373:here
329:talk
304:Keep
293:talk
284:Keep
272:talk
262:and
244:talk
215:FENS
189:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
56:Star
474:not
229:TWL
162:– (
510:)
489:)
462:)
438:)
424:)
392:)
331:)
295:)
274:)
266:.
246:)
209:)
166:|
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
506:(
485:(
458:(
434:(
420:(
388:(
327:(
291:(
270:(
242:(
233:)
225:·
219:·
211:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
186:·
181:(
173:(
170:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.