Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitrified sand

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.  Sandstein  17:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vitrified sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as it is not notable enough to pass the WP:GNG. The article has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} since September of 2009 and a WP:BEFORE search only found trivial mentions of the subject (vitrified sand). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is this source but that is not enough for meeting the WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 20:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful hub article for the various natural and artificial varieties. References can be easily appropriated from any or each of the well-developed specific articles.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful, and effectively, a dab page. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it may be useful, but it is not a dab page. See WP:CONCEPTDAB. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, and it seems to me that it should simply be changed so it's not a disambig page. I'll add to the disambiguation deletion discussion, as it is currently a disambig. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep small but useful. Dlohcierekim 16:34, 1 May 2017 (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.