Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookes Creek mine
- 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 delete. Sandstein 09:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cookes Creek mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is misleading, there is not actually a mine there, its just an exploration site, with no activity since 2016 (see owners 2021 annual report, page 21). Historical mining took place in the 1950s and 1960s, according to this source, but at such small scale (8 employees) that it lacks notability. - was the reason for the initial prod, the AFD is supported by the absence of any material to substantiate the presence of a mine as claimed of such substance in the years between 2012 and 2022, JarrahTree 01:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 01:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
KeepI think we should avoid assessments based on number of employees, recency of activity, scale, and just concern ourselves if it passes WP:GNG. There is coverage in:
- Gemstones of Western Australia (2nd edition) (significant coverage)
- MINING WEEK, 4 Nov 2006, by Robin Bromby, The Australian (not very significant, but more than trivial)
- https://geodocsget.dmirs.wa.gov.au/api/GeoDocsGet?filekey=c8e66b17-d79a-437a-b5b8-a61e095c6191-fpyyeiiwmscg4spvrt5fvyxydi79jcph6ntgscox (a paragraph) CT55555 (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've scored out my keep as I am reading convincing arguments to delete. Currently reflecting.....
- Delete There is so much misinformation there.
- For a start, it claims its a mine, it isn't, its an exploration project at best.
- It states that the mine is owned by Hazelwood Resources, a company that ceased to exist in 2016! As per MINEDEX, the project is now owned by Tungsten Mining NL, a successor of the successor of Hazelwood.
- Back to MINEDEX, it makes it clear that the Big Hill Plant of the proposed mine is really only proposed and nothing as such is there at the location.
- Tungsten Mining NL lists the project now as Big Hill. The little table at the bottom of the article makes it clear that the company has carried out no exploration activity at the project since 2016. There is no measured resource, only inferred, which is just a different word for "guessed". No indication that there really is "9.5 million tonnes" and "one of the largest tungsten reserves in Australia" at location. The archived source supports the first claim, without stating how it was measured (is it JORC complained?) and without any support for the second claim.
- I have dug through the last ten years of the Official Western Australia Mineral and Petroleum Statistics Digests and can't find any mention of this mine. As a matter of fact, the digests list no Tungsten production in WA at all!
To sum it up, this is just another Western Australian mining project that hasn't moved past the basic exploration stage. MINEDEX lists about 5,500 of those! It lacks all notability at this point. Calistemon (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I !voted keep above, but am open minded to changing. I hope you don't mind if I ask you:
- Is the recency/stage important here? That's not part of WP:GNG either reliable sources consider it notable or not.
- Could some of the "misinformation" simply be changed for the accurate info? i.e. deletion is a last resort, improvements should be our default.
- I find all this "it's old, it's speculative" thing to be opinion based and there are plenty of articles about former mines that have not been worked for decades, and rightly so. CT55555 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think, the historic mine workings there and the modern mining project have to be seen as very separate, giving the largeness of the area and time that has since past. Little information seems to be available on the historic mine workings but what is indicates it to be very small. To qualify for the Western Australian Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety official list of principal mining projects an operation has to either had mineral sales valued at more than $5 million, or, for operations where such figures are not reported, had a minimum of 50 employee. We don't know the value of the operation back then but we know it didn't have 50 employees! In regards to the the modern project, its just that, and not a very active one. I will try to dig up an old annual report for Hazelwood Resources from the ASX and see if that produces something, but the modern project does not look very notable at all. Calistemon (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I dug up Hazelwood Resources 2015 annual report and the announcement of the sale of the project in December 2015. The interesting bid about the annual report is that it lists the 9.5 million tonnes as a measured resource, as stated in the article, that now does not appear on the lists anymore. My guess is that this value didn't hold up to proper scrutiny. Another source here has a bit on the historic production of the mine. At a historic production of 17.584 tonnes of Tungsten trioxide, with a historic price per tonne of around $9,000, this would result in a historic production value of $160,000. Unless my calculations are wrong, this isn't a very notable amount at all. Calistemon (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're missing my point. My point is that the size/production/age of the mine is not part of WP:GNG. We're talking as if there is some WP:MINES that says that notability is assume if mines have a certain size or production. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such criteria.
- We should focus on the existence, or lack thereof, of reliable independence sources and avoid personal analysis based on our own ideas of what makes a mine notable. CT55555 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but you don't seem to understand that there is no mine there, contrary to what the article may state. If I removed the parts of the article that are either blatantly untrue or, at best, unverifiable, all that remains would be: The largest deposit is called the Big Hill Tungsten Deposit. It consists of clean scheelite which is easy to extract. Tungsten was first mined in the area in the 1950s. I get that you are trying to prove WP:GNG as part of this deletion discussion but my point is that this mine does not actually exist. The creator, User:Bine Mai, has a long history of creating articles on undeveloped, non-notable mining projects (and not just those, check User talk:Bine Mai to see for yourself) and phrasing them to make it sound like they are actually mines. Articles like this one border on violating WP:HOAX. Calistemon (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see. I think you should feel free to remove anything false or unverified. I'm open minded to being persuaded. Currently reflecting on my !vote. CT55555 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I edit the article now and cut it back like that virtually nothing will be left. Having stood for so long, I won't take any action until the outcome of the process here has been completed, whichever way the decision goes. Should the verdict be keep I will try to make it more accurate. Calistemon (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see. I think you should feel free to remove anything false or unverified. I'm open minded to being persuaded. Currently reflecting on my !vote. CT55555 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but you don't seem to understand that there is no mine there, contrary to what the article may state. If I removed the parts of the article that are either blatantly untrue or, at best, unverifiable, all that remains would be: The largest deposit is called the Big Hill Tungsten Deposit. It consists of clean scheelite which is easy to extract. Tungsten was first mined in the area in the 1950s. I get that you are trying to prove WP:GNG as part of this deletion discussion but my point is that this mine does not actually exist. The creator, User:Bine Mai, has a long history of creating articles on undeveloped, non-notable mining projects (and not just those, check User talk:Bine Mai to see for yourself) and phrasing them to make it sound like they are actually mines. Articles like this one border on violating WP:HOAX. Calistemon (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I dug up Hazelwood Resources 2015 annual report and the announcement of the sale of the project in December 2015. The interesting bid about the annual report is that it lists the 9.5 million tonnes as a measured resource, as stated in the article, that now does not appear on the lists anymore. My guess is that this value didn't hold up to proper scrutiny. Another source here has a bit on the historic production of the mine. At a historic production of 17.584 tonnes of Tungsten trioxide, with a historic price per tonne of around $9,000, this would result in a historic production value of $160,000. Unless my calculations are wrong, this isn't a very notable amount at all. Calistemon (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think, the historic mine workings there and the modern mining project have to be seen as very separate, giving the largeness of the area and time that has since past. Little information seems to be available on the historic mine workings but what is indicates it to be very small. To qualify for the Western Australian Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety official list of principal mining projects an operation has to either had mineral sales valued at more than $5 million, or, for operations where such figures are not reported, had a minimum of 50 employee. We don't know the value of the operation back then but we know it didn't have 50 employees! In regards to the the modern project, its just that, and not a very active one. I will try to dig up an old annual report for Hazelwood Resources from the ASX and see if that produces something, but the modern project does not look very notable at all. Calistemon (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- As proposer of this Afd, I am aware that in Western Australia, and wider in Australia proposed mines are a problem to document, as the literature around the development of prospects attempt to paint a story that makes an exploration site as something established - the list of similar sites that never materialised with multiple investor/owners who never managed to last the duration, would in effect be more than 500 similar sites in Western Australia... none of them would be sufficiently validly notable sites in wikipedian terms, unless they are out of ordinary circumstances. 'Exploration sites' called mines are not that unusual. However 'deposits' (which Bin Mai's edit history had a large and good selection around the world) mean nothing. When they are not developed into a producing mine, they are simply places where exploration and the related activities like drilling and testing, produces literature or news reports that make claims for the investors/companies hoping to attract attention. The article is like a promotional item, claiming the discovered resource to be of a size and quality of interest. If wikipedia was to have all sites of similarly promoted exploration locations, we would never be able to adequately list them all. JarrahTree 12:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I've scored out my keep for now. May switch to a delete. May remain silent/abstain. I appreciate your explanation, which I find convincing. CT55555 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are always issues with getting a handle of the local context of some activities like mining, specially on some continents, where practices of promotion and gaining investment in production facilities, are of such an extraordinary variety - that a good amount of time (which was taken up by potential investors in the past) can be spent, researching prospectus's for mining projects, and annual reports to sort the statistics and explanations of activities, to work out whether some mining companies had leases with verifiable resources, or not. I have spent many hours searching archives in the Mines Department of Western Australia, and the State Records of Western Australia for gold mines that failed, and succeeded (yes both varieties)- and assure you that many mines, never happened despite their names. JarrahTree 12:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK. I've scored out my keep for now. May switch to a delete. May remain silent/abstain. I appreciate your explanation, which I find convincing. CT55555 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- As proposer of this Afd, I am aware that in Western Australia, and wider in Australia proposed mines are a problem to document, as the literature around the development of prospects attempt to paint a story that makes an exploration site as something established - the list of similar sites that never materialised with multiple investor/owners who never managed to last the duration, would in effect be more than 500 similar sites in Western Australia... none of them would be sufficiently validly notable sites in wikipedian terms, unless they are out of ordinary circumstances. 'Exploration sites' called mines are not that unusual. However 'deposits' (which Bin Mai's edit history had a large and good selection around the world) mean nothing. When they are not developed into a producing mine, they are simply places where exploration and the related activities like drilling and testing, produces literature or news reports that make claims for the investors/companies hoping to attract attention. The article is like a promotional item, claiming the discovered resource to be of a size and quality of interest. If wikipedia was to have all sites of similarly promoted exploration locations, we would never be able to adequately list them all. JarrahTree 12:33, 16 May 2022 (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.