Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubas-Tumas 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 keep. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. Discuss merge on the talkpage. Tone 17:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tubas-Tumas mine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence that such a mine exists. Reference points to a general overview of Uranium in Namibia. Tubas is mentioned as an inferred resource but not measured or mined. Scott Davis ^Talk 04:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination has been updated to also include Tubas Red Sand mine which is grouped with the primary nomination in the only reference. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Title restored to only indicate one article --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information into Mining in Namibia - insufficient information to indicate it deserves a separate article JarrahTree 08:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge both pages together as I believe they are the same project. This Economist article reports on the discovery of uranium deposits at Tubas-Tumas. This presentation reports that a bulk sample trench has been dug. The article's claim that the mine is in full-scale operation needs sourcing or removing, but otherwise, there is no problem with having an article here. SpinningSpark 13:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that all these deposits are part of the Reptile Project, owned by the Australian Deep Yellow Limited.[1] Beagel (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SpinningSpark. James500 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. Not a mine, just a prospect. Also recommend deletion of Tubas Red Sand mine which is also just a prospect. WP:TOOSOON. There is no significant coverage because these so-called "mines" are not yet operational, the reserves have yet to be adequately measured, and given the recent and current state of uranium prices, these prospects are unlikely to become mines in the foreseeable future. No merger insufficient information for merger. Redirects not usful since there is little to nothing to say about these prospects other than that they exist and have some guestimates as to reserves. --Bejnar (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title is not a reason for deletion when it could be fixed by renaming, neither if the mine is operational or not. It is important if there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge At present, neither Tumas nor Tubas are mines, neither operational nor planned. Mining licenses have not been granted. Tubas is a hole in the ground, the size of a small public swimming pool, plus an exploration license, plus an estimation on the deposits. Tumas is the same without the hole, and neither of them are notable as businesses or structures. It would thus make sense to merge the information into Uranium mining in Namibia in the form of "Deposits have been discovered at..." BTW, Tubas and Tumas are two different place names, 20 kilometres (12 mi) apart, and shouldn't be lumped together in any way. There's as yet no indication that a future mine, if it is ever developed, would cover both deposits. Tubas Red Sand mine is the same thing as Tubas mine as it is the sand from which the Uranium is to be got. --Pgallert (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be a part of the same Reptile Project by Deep Yellow Limited. Beagel (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a prospective mine which may never become a real mine. WP:TOOSOON. I would not support a merge, as the content would be undue in the suggested target. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is irrelevant if it is prospective mine or not. This is not criteria for deletion. Beagel (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spinningspark. Both articles should be merged and renamed the Reptile Project. Beagel (talk) 11:25, 6 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.