Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priargunsky mine

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai. I see that this has already been done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priargunsky mine[edit]

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

Priargunsky mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After running WP:BEFORE searches, I have been unable to locate significant coverage of this mine and it seems to fit WP:MILL pretty squarely as it's just a mine in Russia. Because this mine does not appear to be notable, I am nominating it for deletion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No, it's not "just a mine in Russia" and, in any case, WP:MILL is an essay not a policy or guideline and so has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". There are many sources which discuss the place in detail and these make it clear that it's a major source of this strategic mineral, being the biggest in Russia and in the world's top 5. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, can you please share those "many sources" with us or add them to the article? I searched and didn't find any sources that would demonstrate significant coverage such that this article could meet WP:GNG or fit any of the criteria in WP:NGEO. I also did some searching and found nothing to support your claims that this mine is "in the world's top 5" or even an unusually large mine in Russia. I stand by my nomination.DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The exact ranking may vary from year to year and at some point the mine will be worked out. But, for example, this source has it as #4 in the world in 2006. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for sharing that. I see that the source says that it was, at least in 2006, the 4th highest producing uranium mine in the world. That seems like a pretty non-notable distinction to me. In other words, are all mines that are in the top X for a particular mineral or ore notable? I wouldn't be in favor of that and I don't think the fact that a mine was the 4th largest uranium mine nearly 15 years ago, by itself, demonstrates notability. I think we should continue to look to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage of a subject and, at least at this point, I still haven't seen evidence that that standard is met. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, if it is "easy to find evidence of notability," please add that evidence to the page so we can resolve this discussion. The article you linked above is (a) one of only two references I found in my BEFORE search, (b) isn't even the actual paper itself, just a one paragraph abstract as far as I can tell, and (c) hardly qualifies as significant coverage (i.e., a one-off report by a regulatory body regarding a subject's existence for X years is clearly not "significant coverage"). You keep responding that there are "many sources" and that they are "easy" to find. And I'm taking you at your word on that because I'm a strong believer in assuming good faith, so if that's the case for you (it wasn't for me), then please simply improve the article by adding them so we can close this debate. I will gladly withdraw this AFD if the article is improved such that significant coverage is shown as I like having more content in Wikipedia so long as its appropriate! Thank you. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have provided specific links to multiple sources while the nominator has provided zero evidence; just empty assertions. My !vote stands per WP:SHRUBBERY. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think further discussion between the two of us is going to be productive but thank you for weighing in. I'd just like to clearly state for anyone else considering this AFD that these "multiple sources" being referred to here are only (1) a single reference in a table stating that, in 2006, the mine was a large uranium mine and (2) an abstract of a regulatory report acknowledging that the mine has existed for 25 years. My point, throughout this process, has been that there is not significant coverage demonstrating notability and, if anything, this process has only made that conclusion clearer IMHO. DocFreeman24 (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismissing WP:MILL as just an essay means only that you, Andrew, apparently disagree with it. If I am mistaken, and you do agree with it, then it doesn't matter that it has no official status because (a) WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and (b) you would personally advance the same argument. But in the other case, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY still applies in the inverse: the argument it makes isn't magically wrong due to its lack of official endorsement. Personally, I find the essay entirely consistent as an explanation of one element of the GNG. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MILL's status as an unofficial essay is a plain fact. And, in any case, it is not appropriate to this subject because the place in question is exceptional. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have left a message on the mining project talkpage about this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That project seems to be quite dead -- about the only postings there this year are Coolabahapple's appeals. It seems that we have many inspectors but no miners. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai, leaving redirect; it's a small stub which can easily be incorporated in a section. I don't think that the subject is unnotable (I wouldn't oppose recreation with further content), just that the current article is short even for a stub, and does not therefore merit it's own article. WT79 (speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing) 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC) P.S. WP:WikiProject Mining isn't quite dead; it has notified at least me of this discussion.[reply]
  • Delete or at least merge/redirect, the article doesn't establish notability. The original author has a long history of creating articles about mines that either:
    1. Are not not sourced to anything reliable
    2. Has sources which don't reference the subject at all
    3. Claim to be one of the "largest mines in the country, and the world" when there is not actually a mine there at all, it's just a depoisit.
Without notability established within the article, delete/merge/redirect (whatever I don't care), but it shouldn't stand alone as is. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This substub is very bad, and my search for sources turns up next to nothing. However, recently I did some search for sources about a Polish coal mine and found quite a few, mostly in Polish-language engineering journals. Which leads me to speculate that sources may exist - in Russian. That, however, needs to be verified by a Russian speaker. I suggest this AfD is not closed until a Russian speaker has done a search for such sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) PS. I've changed my vote to abstein in light of sources being found below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a mine, the "Priargunsky mine" appears to be just an ordinary mine of little siginifcance presuming it even exists and not a garbled misinterpretation of Priargunsky Centre. The Priargunsky Centre is part of the Streltsovskiy district. It was and still is a significance region for the production of uranium for the Russian Federation. Is is also an area where significant research has gone into the reclamantion of abandoned mined lands and the mitigation of environmental concerns associated with large-scale mining. One problem is that the vast majority of the numerous articles about the Priargunsky Centre are in Russian and unaccessible as translations. The Priargunsky Centre (also known as the Priargunsky Mining-Chemical Production Association ???) is a significant uranium mining and processing entity in Trans-Baikal Territory of the Russian Federation. A summary article is:
  • Boitsov, A.V., Nikolsky, A.L., Chernigov, V.G. and Ovseichuk, V.A., 2000. Uranium production at the Priargunsky Centre (Russian Federation) and its impact on the environment (No. IAEA-SM--362). Paul H. (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
http://priargunsky.armz.ru/en/ Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, add more sources. A mine seems a much more notable thing than various sandwiches eaten in America or micro-NGOs promoting street dogs or whatnot. Sources above make seem it is quite a big mine as mines go. A large mine seems like a very notable thing considering the geographical area it occupies, money and jobs it has garnered, products produced, pollution, you name it. Leo Breman (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai I found plenty of sources for mining in Krasnokamensk such as [1],

[2], [3], [4], [5], but nothing SIGCOV with the name Priargunsky mine.   // Timothy :: talk  19:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge. On the delete side, the Bine Mai created this article and that user has created 3,657 articles, 3.2% of which have been deleted. 3.2% seems high to me and it seems like they create articles and have not been going back and expanding them. I've seen this in other geography-related articles. I was skeptical about getting involved in the discussion of this article, but as it has not been resolved, here goes. If the mine was a community, then it might meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND because there are a few scholarly articles about the mine such as [6]. Unfortunately, the paper on the mine's first 25 years is only in Russian and not available on line, so I don't feel it can be added to the article as a reference. There are also mentions of the mine in various other references. One question is whether these sources are WP:RS. However, the Washington Post article is non-trivial coverage in a WP:RS source for the mine. However, this is not a community - it is a mine. With mines, there are often lots of articles about a non-notable mine, including mining stock press releases that are definitely not WP:RS. I found it interesting to compare this article with other uranium mines listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Articles for Verification. Most of the other articles are stubs and I don't think that they have as large a production as this location. If this gets deleted, the we really need to go through all the other mine pages listed (starting with uranium mines) and apply the same standards. As an absurd exercise, if we apply the metric that only the top three producers of each product are notable, then we should be able to quickly cut the list down :-)
The primary reason to keep this article is because it was the number one source of uranium in Russia for an entire decade (1988-1998 and 1992-2002). This makes it notable. My opinion is that where Russia gets its uranium is very interesting in part because Russia has nuclear weapons that need feedstock. Also, in 2006 it was the #4 producer of uranium world-wide. I've added support for this to the article. That said, merging with Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Kraiwould also be OK with me. Cxbrx (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. Well played. However, I have created only 29 articles and 1 has been deleted, so it is the problem of a small sample size. The article that was deleted concerned a company that was involved in a controversy about the Airbus 380, see Joseph Mangan. I let it slide because I had previously tangled with editors who are Airbus proponents and am adverse to conflict on Wikipedia - there are just too many things to do. The reason I bring up the number of articles deleted is because it seems that a few authors have generated a huge number of stub articles and then never gone back and filled them in. This has generated quite a bit of work. See WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force#I've got it! and below on that page. Also, this is at least the second stub article I've run in to that was created by the same editor that had problems.
About this mine, there is a 2006 NY Times article. As we now have a NY Times and a WA Post article, I think we have suitable coverage. See also Radio Free Europe and Greenpeace photos and text. I've spent quite a bit of time cleaning up non-notable geography articles, primarily in Nevada and California, but this mine seems notable to me. The NY Times article states that Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai is only present because of the mine and suggests that when the mine is gone, the town will disappear. So in many ways, this mine is more notable than some random Russian town. I'd be OK with a merge, do you want to take a shot at merging the text from the mine over to Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai? Cxbrx (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Nominator. I'd like to thank everyone who participated in this AfD and, in particular, the folks who improved the article by finding sources. To the extent it matters, I no longer favor deletion and think that, at most, this article should be merged, if not kept outright. It seems that at least some of the issues I was concerned about regarding notability arise from naming issues that made it hard for me to find reliable sources. So, having read more closely at the points/sources folks were making, I think this article probably meets GNG now. Thanks again to everyone who participated and made this article better! DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I decided to be WP:BEBOLD and went ahead and merged the contents of the Priargunsky mine article in to the Krasnokamensk, Zabaykalsky Krai article in part because Priargunsky mine is pretty much an orphan. If there is disagreement, then I'll pull my changes. BTW - I hate seeing text duplicated, but it seems to be very common. In the past, I've tried using WP:TRANS, but my changes have been reverted by an editor who states that transclusion does not work in their viewer. I've changed my vote to Merge. If there is no disagreement, I leave it to an admin to do the merge. Cxbrx (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Priargunsky_mine&oldid=996400588"