Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peak Hill, Western Australia

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 as per WP:SNOW article expand beyond one line and now includes 16 references. Renaming can be discussed/resolved on the article talk page. Gnan garra 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peak Hill, Western Australia

Delete nothing to indicate that the disused mine to which this unsourced one-line article refers is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS One line article --Numyht (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Jeez, improve a one-line article rather than deleting it? There's only a whole book about it. --Canley (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might rename it to "Peak Hill Goldfield". This was a very notable mine and an important goldfield in the history of Western Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics covered it extensively in their WA Yearbooks. --Canley (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but agree with Canley on renaming. The mine is one part of a larger article. There are a handful of articles here, especially about the transition from an active mine, that can be used in addition to the book above to flesh out the mine section. There is certainly enough from which to build an article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to paraphrase - there is nothing to show the first two participants in this debate looked. Heaps of book references, notes on government websites, bucket loads of scholarly articles.... Subject is fundamentally an appropriate topic and is very well written about in a large number of places - clearly passes WP:whatever - Peripitus (Talk) 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can understand the nominators rationale and I am generally opposed to the creation of one-line sub-stubs, this article has obvious potential for improvement. I am certain that WP:WA will bring this article up to speed quick smart. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above, a veritable cavalcade of good references and sources for building this article up are available. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. A great amount of secondary sources have covered this topic. If you see a problem with an article of a notable topic, fix it instead of trying to delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Peak Hill Goldfield Dusti^SPEAK!! 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - you're all 'tothersiders obviously :) and to use oggle is a tragic mistake Satu Suro 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable - the article is a little messy at the moment, but as you can see, it's come a fair distance from the original two sentence paragraph. Somno (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article has been fleshed out & sufficient referenced - justifying its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could a non-involved administrator speedy close this nomination. The expansion surely satisfies the nominator's concerns. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:41, 30 June 2008 (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.