Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Valley 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 redirect to Pilbara. Due to the sourcing issues, redirect seems the best outcome at this moment, so that it is easier to restore it if better sources appear. Tone 17:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Valley mine (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)

Does not appear notable, probably won't meet wp:n but not sure. The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 01:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while the Iron Valley mine may be "small' in comparison to other iron ore mines in the Pilbara, at 7 million tonnes per annum it's equivalent to e.g. over one seventh of total Canadian iron ore production.Bahudhara (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge The worst case would be merger to Pilbara per WP:ATD-M and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete This is really a corporation article, and I find nothing on this mine that isn't routinely reported of every mine in the world, so I do not see the notability. It also seems to me to fail WP:GEOLAND though I doubt the latter is really the applicable standard. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Bahudhara is right. Just because the article is a stub does not mean it is appropriate for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep active and non active mines, regardless of size are notable - and relevant to the Mining project, to the Western Australian project, and to the Pilbara project - it has adequate referencing JarrahTree 14:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not every mine is notable; if we are not a gazetteer, then we are not a gazetteer nor a directory of mines. I don't think you appreciate how common these things are, and how pitiful little information is known about them. 95% of them would fail WP:GNG, and while there is something to be said for notability guidelines which simplify checking, they are not loopholes for inclusion of minor items dear to a particular project. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"if we are not a gazetteer, then we are not a gazetteer ...", sorry, don't understand this, WP:5P1 - "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.", WP:NGEO - "Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; ...". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is absolutely no basis in guidelines or precedent that all mines are automatically notable, what utter BS. Lacks significant independent coverage, sources are databases or the mine owners. Reywas92^Talk 17:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The Minday.org citation looks decent. However, the other information I can find is either published by firms utilizing the mine or trivial mentions in detailed lists of mining yields. I don't think GEOLAND applies here, as it is a man-made feature. Minor oil wells and small dams don't get free passes I don't think. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:14, 16 July 2020 (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.