Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhonghe 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. Something that doesn't exist, and may not exist in the future. As pointed out, WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON applies, especially when the sources are well out of date. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhonghe 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)

Proposed for deletion in 2014 but objected on the basis that the title was wrong. There is still no evidence that there is a large (or any other) open pit mine with any reserves or measured resource. http://www.wise-uranium.org/uona.html#ZHONGHE "At a glance, this project does not look feasible with current uranium prices." http://www.mining.com/mysterious-uranium-project-partially-revealed-in-namibia-94905/ Scott Davis ^Talk 04:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The very source you offer as evidence of lack of notability does just the opposite. You cherry pick a quote, but fail to say it goes on to write "...it is very likely that this uranium mine will be commissioned in the foreseeable future". SpinningSpark 12:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Additionally, there is substantial coverage in [1] and it gets a paragraph or so in [2], [3] (in German) and [4]. SpinningSpark 12:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - http://www.namibianuranium.org/zhonge-resources/ is about investigations, not actual specific mining - I have been a geological assistant in the past, and I am sorry I find it very hard to accept that any investigation ever constitutes a resultant actual mine. Here in Western Australia where I live - uranium deposit investigations mean nothing... such investigations can constitute clarification of deposits - snd newspaper reports - but that never actually specifically designates a resultant mining operation - the factors against actual mining operations are many. If the article was about the deposit - that is a totally different matter. JarrahTree 13:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good case for renaming the page. It's not a good case for deletion. SpinningSpark 15:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Description why PROD was objected, is incorrect. The reason for deletion was given "Not a mine. Exploration property" and this was objected on the basis that incorrect title is not a sufficient reason for deletion without using other tools (move etc) beforehand. It would be probably better to rename it the the Zhonghe uranium project. Beagel (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SpinningSpark. We don't delete articles just because they need to be renamed. James500 (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, if at all. The reserves at Zhonghe are not a significant percentage of Namibian uranium reserves. The article says Zhonghe represents one of the largest uranium reserves in Namibia but this is just not true. In fact it has less reserves than any other Namibian uranium mine, except Langer Heinrich, which while almost played out, its ore has twice the concentration of uranium that Zhonghe has. Also, there is no evidence that actual mining is taking place at Zhonghe. It seems that trenching, geological research and geophysical surveying are not yet complete. Zhonghe Resources In the April 2013 article in the Namibian Sun "Details emerge around Zhonge Uranium" said that there was still a long way to go before the realisation of the project. In December 2016 a manager for Zimabawe government said Zhonge Resources presented its showcase uranium project. Still requires a whole lot of geotechnical & admin beef up to turn around potential. In October 2017 the Namib Times indicated that Low uranium price continues to present major challenge and still listed Zhonghe as an exploration project. There is no mine yet. --Bejnar (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be the case of WP:TOOSOON but the fact that the is no mine yet is irrelevant for the deletion discussion. There is an uranium mining project as confirm by the sources you provided and if they satisfy WP:GNG, it is enough. The issue of the article's title, if wrong, should be decided by WP:RM discussion. Beagel (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After I just removed an unsupported (grossly exaggerated) claim from this article, the only sentence that remains is that Zhonghe is a mine in Erongo. But this is not true. There is no mine. There is a company, Zhonghe Resources, which has been granted a mining license. The sources listed above are about the company, which in all likelihood is not in Erongo. What is there in Erongo, is an area of deposits that have been analysed. As a company, Zhonghe does not reach notability, that's why renaming is not an option, either. --Pgallert (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The discussion has been focused to the size of uranium deposit and speculations if the mine will be opened or not. This is not relevant for this discussion: the project exists and ironically sources establishing its (weak but still) notability is provided by opponents themselves. I added some of them to the article and expanded the text. Therefore, keep per SpinningSpark. Need to be renamed is not a valid reason for deletion. Beagel (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, the project is verifiable from the sources, but there is no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2018 (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.