Zau de Câmpie gas field: Finding none, I proposed it for deletion.  This was objected to and claims of adding important info were made.  I redirected it to a relevant table, and it was undone.  Again with claims of adding important information.  I then tagged it for lacking significant coverage, that tag was removed no reason given.  The information in the article now is derived from 6 sources.  Here's a summary of those: In the first reference it is mentioned once in passing and is not the subject of the paragraph in which it is mentioned.  In the second reference, it's mentioned twice in passing and is not the subject of the article.  In the third reference it is mentioned once in passing, not as the subject.  I can't translate the fourth reference but it is clearly from 1922 and is presented in the article as a reliable source for data in 2009 and 2010.  The fifth reference is just a data sheet from a financial report or something.  The sixth reference mentions it in passing, but it is not the subject of the source.  None of these sources nor any of the info in the WP article say anything at all about this field being important in any way.  So they don't establish significance, Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance , and gas fields are not covered very well by any policy.  WP:GEO wants clear evidence of importance.  I assert that it is a non notable run of the mill gas field with outdated info and should be deleted not redirected .  Thus I submit it to AFD.  James.folsom ( talk ) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Romania .  James.folsom ( talk ) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The article pertains to one of the oldest gas fields in Europe (discovered in 1914, continuously exploited since 1920), with a well-documented history, both in the academic press (e.g., Annals of the University of Oradea , Romanian Review of Regional Studies), news organizations articles (e.g., RFE/RL , MSNews ), and various government and industry press releases, for a total of 10 references so far.  This is not a "run of the mill" gas field; rather, it is one of the very few oil fields in Europe more than 100 years old (that's why it has references going back to 1922) and still in operation, at the center of an area that produces some 3/4 of Romania's natural gas output (itself 3rd in Europe after Holland and UK).  The importance of the field to the economy of Romania is highlighted in a (restricted) CIA report from 1948 (made public in 2011), which mentions it specifically, devoting a whole paragraph to the Zau de Câmpie gas field.  Furthermore, it is not at all the case that the information contained in the article is "outdated": there are several references from 2018–2022, some of them referring to current output, means of gas extraction or compression (62 drilling rigs in operation, new compressor), and fairly current (2017) estimates of reserves and prospects for further production extended up to 2029.  Turgidson ( talk ) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies I realized I misspoke, by omitting details around my outdated comment.  So I will explain.  The article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, and things like what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has.  These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article, and these things change from one year to the next so they would be out of date unless someone is constantly updating that.  There are literally hundred of other articles about gas fields, and even more about oil fields, that are just like this.  Who is going to keep all these trivial numbers updated annually?  Furthermore the people who would want this info is not going to come to Wikipedia for.  It's out place, but the problem is if you get rid of it there is no article.  Comment It's true there are now ten 11 references, and some of them actually mention this place.  None of them state this is an important gas field.  At least one of the sources points out that being and old gas field is a bad thing.  None of the provided references are significant coverage.  I've thoroughly looked and I know there isn't any.  Here's a breakdown of the claimed important coverage: The 11th reference is just a trade journal reporting on agreements being renewed and only mentions this field in passing.  The 10th is just basic statistics probably from a financial report.  The ninth reference is dated 1922, and is used as a source for info from 2009-2010.  I can't translate it.  The eighth reference mentions this gas field in passing as part of a larger important area.  But doesn't state it is of any special value.  The seventh, is the cia report, It's the only source in this batch that even uses the word 'Important'.  But it's not referring to this gas field, but a well in the field.  The report is merely summarizing the gas resources in Romania and doesn't single this one out as particularly important.  The fifth just talks about drilling somewhere, it was a routine church announcement.  The Sixth, doesn't mention this gas field, and is an article that states that gas resources in Romania are now headed toward depletion due to the long period of exploitation.  The fourth, lists it as a gas field but has nothing else to say.  The third article doesn't mention it.  The second article just states what gas compressor it uses.  The first reference mentions it in passing once, in a discussion about the first gas pipline.  There's nothing here to establish this as a stand alone article.  Comment It's probably worth considering that the Romanian language Wikipedia has this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99 , but it's about the village in the area the gas field is named for.  It also has this article about the larger region containing the gas field https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99 .  Neither of these mention the gas field.  There is also this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazele_naturale_%C3%AEn_Rom%C3%A2nia on natural gas in Romania.  That article mentions several important gas fields in Romania.  This one is not on that list.  Furthermore, despite the stated importance of those gas fields there are no articles about them to be found on the Romanian Wikipedia.  So you can rely on the fact that even Romanians don't care about this one.  And, they clearly don't want articles about gas fields.  If this is such great gas field, how come nobody on the Romanian Wikipedia thought to write about it?  Maybe I should change my vote to "move it to the Romanian Wikipedia"?  Since they need an article on this very important gas field.  Then we'll see how fast they delete it.  James.folsom ( talk ) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] disagree with nomination as the article has a clear claim of importance.  Probably any gas field is important, but this one more so since it has been going over 100 years.  I will not have comment on notability.  Graeme Bartlett ( talk ) 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the provided sources, passes WP:GNG , and i'd say "one of the oldest gas fields in Europe" is a credible claim of significance.  Wheather sources are from last week or 200 years old dosen't really matter.  Sources don't explicitly have to highlight the subject as being especially "important" to establish notability.  " article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article. "  Those would be first things to talk about in an article about oil/gas fields?  Wheather articles about the topic exist or dosen't exist in other projects dosen't matter for notability in the English WP.  -- TheImaCow ( talk ) The first red flag was that the article spent more words on a general history of gas production in Romania as a whole and didn't even get to the specific subject until over halfway through the body.   The second red flag comes from checking out the sources.   It turns out that sources that talk about the "CENTRU region" or the Transylvanian Basin gas production as a whole, and that include this subject as one item in a list at one point in the source, have had all of the other locations stripped out.   For examples: The Tofan source, supporting the introduction, actually says "Transilvaniei Plain" and this subject is in a list "Zau de Câmpie, Șincai and Delenii" and not specifically singled out.  The Crețu source, supporting where the article body actually gets around to this subject, talks about the "CENTRU region" and on the page supporting the content this subject is merely one in a list "Nades, Zaul de Campie, Bogata, Saros, Singiorgiu de Campie, Seleus, ZăuŞăulia, Mădăraş, Sărmăşel, Cetatea de Balta, Tauni, Porumbenii Mari, Avramesti, Mugeni, etc."  Yes, etc. even!  The MS News source doesn't even narrow down to this subject in its list.  "Păingeni, Saușa, Zau de Câmpie – Saulia și, Săbed" it says.   So it's not Zau de Câmpie but Zau de Câmpie – Saulia .  It turns out that the Romanian government's Annex A (of what document, the source citation doesn't say) says Zau de Câmpie–Saulia too.   It's even in the title in the citation.   So this article has even narrowed the few sources that seem on-point to a narrower subject.   And it's not apparent, since this is Annex A in its own PDF file in the uploads section of a Wordpress site, who the author of Annex A is.  It's not that this is run-of-the-mill.   Everything is run-of-the-mill and dull to somebody.   It's that the world's knowledge of the entire Transylvanian Basin's gas production has been lopsidedly presented under the subject of just one of the things that most of the sources (in the article, and the ones that I could find after some looking around for geological reports and the like) just include in laundry lists of places where gas wells are, and don't directly discuss in depth as a specific standalone topic.  Uncle G ( talk ) 05:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I concede the run of the mill, thing, thanks for providing another take on why this needs to go away.  Much better than my explanation.  James.folsom ( talk ) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The article now mentions a PhD thesis from 1929 (by geologist Augustin Vancea [ ro ] , a future corresponding member of the Romanian Academy ), which specifically mentions in the title "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie (Moinești)", Moinești being an alternate name for the village, briefly adopted after 1926 , but then abandoned.  The work is quoted in a 2010 PhD thesis from Babeș-Bolyai University by Liana Spulber , where additional context can be found.  Finally, as briefly mentioned in a previous comment of mine, the Zau de Câmpie gas field is specifically mentioned as being important to the Romanian economy, in a full, standalone paragraph from a 1948 CIA report, itself based on an August 15, 1948 article in the official PCR publication, Scînteia (I tried to dig out the original Scînteia piece, but it's behind a paywall).  Turgidson ( talk ) 01:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] you need to actually read the policies on significant coverage, because you don't seem to understand that these sources are not significant coverage.  James.folsom ( talk ) 14:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Improvments were made to the article since AFD started.  I've reviewed them and have new analysis.  The article is no longer about the gas field.  In order to expand the article without having significant coverage, the editor has incorporated a bunch material about Romanian gas production and gas production around the world.  Only ~half of the sources, and text in this article is actually about the gas field.  This makes the article longer, but not better.  In checking all the sources, none of them are written about this gas field, many mention it in lists, tables and in passing.  But, they are all written about another subject.  None of those passing mentions single out this gas field as special.  WP:Sigcov / Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance is one of the plainest policies that WP has, and according to that, even this article is no longer significant coverage of the topic.  Most every mention of the name of this gas field in this wiki article are passing mentions.  I will leave you with examples.  Here is an example of a notable gas field, Darvaza_gas_crater .  Those who want to see what significant coverage of a gas field looks like may try this: https://www.offshore-mag.com/field-development/article/16766862/perla-gas-field-offshore-venezuela-enters-production .  Note that the name of the field is in the title of the source.  Now as an exercise try finding the name of this field in the title of anything.  James.folsom ( talk ) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] When you say that no source mentions the subject of the article in the title, do you mean that in a literal sense (as in the mathematical concept of Empty set ), or in some kind of figurative sense, or perhaps statistical sense?  As clearly mentioned in the article (and reiterated in previous comments on this page), there was a whole thesis written by a geologist (later academician ), whose title contains the words "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie" (see also GoogleScholar and click on Cite).  Turgidson ( talk ) 14:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Comment I realized I would be amenable to moving this to a title more befitting this article, now that it is rewritten about another topic.  Maybe "history of Transylvania natural gas" or some such.  James.folsom ( talk ) 18:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good idea.   -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 21:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : fails GNG.  Agree with James.folsom eval.  Existence does not mean notability.  // Timothy :: talk 19:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Since the article has shifted its topic since the nomination, it would be useful to get more feedback about moving it to a more fitting title, such as "Natural gas in Transylvania".  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The information that was added here should have been added to other articles instead of here.  The proper thing now might be to merge it to places it belongs, for example Transylvanian_Plateau .  James.folsom ( talk ) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment the only goal of the keep voters is just to never delete anything, they have no intention of improving the article.  I reassert my deletion stance.  And, since someone recently got it through my head what primary and secondary sources are, I add that this subject has no secondary sourcing required by WP:GNG.  James.folsom ( talk ) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's simply not true - Turgidson did not only ! vote keep, but made large improvements to the article.  Article before the first PROD and now .  I reassert my "Keep".  Also, I don't see how this article has "shifted its topic".  Does adding 2 paragraphs about why this field is important really change the topic?  It is clearly still about that particular field.  -- TheImaCow ( talk ) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - "content is king" for me. I don't want to lose reliably sourced content.  I'm agnostic as to whether that material is in a standalone article (that meets notability requirements), a list or part of some other article.  If anything, Wikipedia needs fewer, longer standalone articles to maintain -- as long as we keep the same content. Note that reliable sources include primary sources, subject to the 6  requirements laid out in WP:PRIMARY , part of our foundational No Original Research policy. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 15:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (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 a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: no consensus