Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chatanika gold dredge (Fairbanks)

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. and possibly Move as per DGG Black Kite (t) (c) 10:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chatanika gold dredge (Fairbanks)[edit]

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

An abandoned piece of mining equipment in the middle of nowhere. Doesn't seem like a particularly good topic for an article and there are no reliable sources attached. The one "source" that is attached mentions gold dredges in this area but not this specific one. PROD was declined some time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom has not given proper reason to delete this article. "An abandoned piece of mining equipment in the middle of nowhere" is pure opinion and has nothing to do with our notability guidelines. This has received coverage from multiple reliable sources. [1][2][3][4][5] None go very in-depth, but collectively they do indicate notability. --Oakshade (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The RS on the topic is: Spence, Clark C. (1996). The northern gold fleet: twentieth-century gold dredging in Alaska. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0252022181. The retirement of Dredge #3 in 1963 is described on page 134. East of Borschov 08:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several reliable sources which cover the topic have been found, so this meets WP:N. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, WP:N requires 'significant coverage from multiple sources. We've got multiple brief mentions in reliable sources, but nothing in-depth. The sources verify that this thing exists, which was never in dispute, but nothing else. Given that it is briefly mentioned in several guides to the area, perhaps a merge to the extremely brief article on Chatanika, Alaska would be a good solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, WP:N does not "require" significant coverage from "multiple" sources. As a matter of fact, it has provisions when sources are not in-depth - From WP:N, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." --Oakshade (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we've got several sources that say almost nothing. Meaning the article is destined to say almost nothing. Any comment on the idea of a merge? I realize I initially proposed deletion, but at this point a merge seems a decent third option. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to be a part of Chatanika Gold Camp, and thereby on the NRHP. The best thing to do is research the correct name of the NHRP listing, make an article on that, and eventually merge the dredge there. Abductive (reasoning) 02:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's related to the camp, but miles away from it. Many of the workers on the dredge were housed at the camp.--Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a contributing property of an NHRP, the distance doesn't matter. If not, merging might still be a good idea, since everything is so spread out in Alaska. Tourism books seem to treat them together. In any case, more research is needed, not deletion at this time. Abductive (reasoning) 02:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why was (Fairbanks) at the end of the article name? There's no other Chatanika gold dredge. Is someone just a big fan of adding qualifiers where they're not needed — like those n00bs who make an article on a film and tag it with (film)? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered that myself but since I was bringing it here I didn't fix it. Of course I never imagined this would stretch out for three weeks... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to now have been fixed DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move as the start of a new article on Historic Fairbanks Exploration Company Gold Camp which is on the National Register of Historic places. That's where it's located. our practice is that buildings in these cites are not usually giuven separate articles unless individual listed (which this one is not). DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 12 August 2010 (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.