Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alumina refineries

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. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of alumina refineries

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

Delete per WP:NOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No comprehensible nomination.

Alumina refineries are significant pieces of engineering. They will (as does any construction of such scale) be fairly easy to demonstrate notability for. Each one also consumes considerable electrical power, has large quantities of raw materials shipped to it, and has a risk of environmental damage from their effluents. The locations of such plants are entirely proper topics for encyclopedic coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy at WP:NOT should be a comprehensible reason enough reason for deletion in both specifics and in "spirit". I am not denying that alumina plants are significant although how significant is the question. It is interesting to note that none of the refineries have their own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liefting, you need to actually explain your reasoning to the community in this (and all your other "edits") rather than just say "per X" where X is a guideline that covers a multitude of sins. It's not up to the community to work out what you're saying, it's up to you to you say it. And say it explicitly. The onus is on you to prove why anything should be deleted or moved etc, and in doing that you have to be explicit in the guidelines or policies or consensual discussions you're referring to in order to back up your position. If you continue to just claim "Per WP:X" you may end up becoming the boy who cried wolf. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am still an a last name basis Mr Man. Can I call you The? I like to keep things informal around here. Anyway, I had vowed not to rise to the bait that you keep throwing my way but that last statement really got up my goat. As an atheist and a rationalist I would never say "Per WP:X". WikiProject Christianity does not usually come into deletion discussions... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like "per WP:X" Although it was obviously intended as a placeholder for blank appeals to any policy, its accidental monotheistic invocation highlights the point that this is all you're doing. WP isn't a theocracy. It doesn't_(sic) operate by either prayers to the thunder-block wielding Olympian Jimbo, nor even to just citing verses by their placeholder. Instead we're supposed to use some fluffy schoolroom version of Hegelian dialectic.

So far you've cited one of the broadest of policies, with no detail or explanation. Then you did it again. Then you switched to name calling (that wasn't even an ad hominem).

So what's your point? I've given you my thesis, refute it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by default as incomplete nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Andy says, "Alumina refineries are significant pieces of engineering", so it looks like a valid list to me. Also have to agree with Andy and TRM that the nomination is incredibly vague. Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I think the nomination is sufficiently inadequate to warrant a closure on procedural grounds, I also believe this article should be kept on its merits. I consider Andy Dingley's arguments to be persuasive; furthermore, many types of facilities of similar complexity and import also support lists of this manner (cf. List of oil refineries, List of nuclear reactors, and the four lists disambiguated at List of hydroelectric power stations). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2012 (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.