Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines

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 snow keep. The spirit, if not the letter, of WP:SK ground 1 is met because the nominator has been indeffed as a bad faith editor and nobody else thinks this material ought to be deleted. Besides, this debate has attracted more than enough attention for a clear consensus to emerge. I hereby explicitly invoke WP:IAR to perform an early non-admin closure irrespective of whatever guidelines tell me I shouldn't.

If a good faith editor would like to raise a fresh AfD for this material, then there's obviously no problem with that at all.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Rio Tinto Mines[edit]

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

I am nominating all articles in Category:Rio Tinto Iron Ore, save for Hamersley & Robe River railway

Entire list: Brockman mine, ~~West Angelas mine,~~ Channar mine, Eastern Range mine, ~~Hope Downs mine, Marandoo mine,~~ Mesa A mine, Mesa J mine, Mount Tom Price mine, Nammuldi mine, Paraburdoo mine, and Yandicoogina mine.

I believe they should be merged into a list (perhaps titled List of Rio Tinto mines) with a table listing the following pieces of information: the owner of each mine (some mines are owned only partly by Rio Tinto), the production capacity of each mine, whether the workforce is on a Fly-in fly-out roster, when each mine began operations, each mine's precise location, and a column for other notes. The other pages should be deleted.

Rationale These pages are basically duplicates of one another, only differing in their production capacity, year that operations began, and where the main workforce resides.

All articles begin: X is an iron ore mine located in the Pilbara region of Western Australia... The mine is fully-owned and operated by Rio Tinto Iron Ore and is one of twelve iron ore mines the company operates in the Pilbara.
In the overview section: Rio Tinto iron ore operations in the Pilbara begun in 1966. The mine itself begun operations in X. The mine has an annual production capacity of x tonnes of iron ore, sourced from open-pit operations... The mines workforce is on a Fly-in fly-out roster.

These mines are not notable in themselves, so a list would be the best course of action. Whwya (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all As a general rule with mining articles, individual mines on Wikipedia have their own articles rather then being grouped in massive lists. As to the said twelve articles, I think those mines are very notable as they contribute large amounts to the world iron ore production. As to the similarity of all twelve articles, they are still in the process of expansion, as you would expect with articles created in the last 24 hours. While User:Whwya spend his time Wikihounding me (see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding by User Whwya) and nominating those articles for deletion, I was actually working on them and expanding them. Calistemon (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that "individual mines on Wikipedia have their own articles"? Rather than sending a WP:VAGUEWAVE, why not lay out reliable sources that have significant coverage of these mines? Almost all of these articles are sourced to the Rio Tinto website. Whwya (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were already in an expansion phase at the time of your blanket-deletion proposel. Brockman mine and Channar mine undergone expansion with reliable third-party resources ( The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian) by the time you tagged them. Your actions show your true intend, to target me, not the articles, as you paid no attention to the already carried out expansions when you nominated them all for deletion! Calistemon (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Brockman mine, the third-party sources are [1] and [2]. The first source mentions a quote from a spokesperson "Channar was shut as part of our reduction in Pilbara production … just as Brockman 2 was shut" – the fact that Brockman mine was closed briefly does not confer notability. Likewise, for the second source, the upcoming mine "Brockman 4" does not confer notability.

For Channar mine, the third-party sources are [3]/[4], [5], and [6]. The first three are insignificant coverage, but the fourth could make Channar mine borderline notable since it was China's "first ever investment in Australia". Whwya (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there is no hard and fast rule regarding notability of individual mines, I have never seen one deleted, either by AfD, or by speedy deletion (with the exception of some that had nothing but an infobox, which were eventually restored and expanded).--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all with the exception of maybe Nammuldi mine. A simple Google News search brings up multiple article specifically about each mine (with the exception of Nammuldi mine, which might take some more digging). Personally I don't like articles entirely sourced with company information, but as shown there is other information out there. Personally I think a little bit of investigation should have been taken place prior to mass nomination. Calistemon should have probably completed his expansion before moving to article space.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brockman mine has only 1 result, which is unrelated to the mine.
West Angelas mine – I would be amenable keeping it [7].
Channar mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Eastern Range mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Hope Downs mine – I would be amenable keeping it [8] [9].
Marandoo mine – I would be amenable keeping it [10] [11].
Mesa A mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Mesa A mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Mount Tom Price mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Nammuldi mine – I see no results.
Paraburdoo mine – I see only insignificant coverage.
Yandicoogina mine – I see only [12] or [13] insignificant coverage.

In summary, Brockman mine, ~~West Angelas mine,~~ Channar mine, Eastern Range mine, ~~Hope Downs mine, Marandoo mine,~~ Mesa A mine, Mesa J mine, Mount Tom Price mine, Nammuldi mine, Paraburdoo mine, and Yandicoogina mine should be deleted for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Whwya (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only carried out searches and expansions on Brockman and Channar, but have found a number of reliable third-party sources for both mines, related to the mine. It appears, Whwya, you are not looking in the right places, or don't want to look. Calistemon (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on your expansions on Brockman and Channar above. I am looking in the right places, mind you. Your continued crybaby attitude does not help your case; I suggest you grow up. Whwya (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm growing a bit tired of your personal attacks against me, please cut them out. Calistemon (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks? Whwya (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one right above, calling other editors names is a bit juvenile, don't you think? Calistemon (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not juvenile when it remains within reality. Whwya (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I would rather see these being rewritten and expanded than simply deleted. Ng.j (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too would rather see these expanded than deleted, but unfortunately, how would they be expanded with the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources? Your WP:NOREASON is unconstructive in this debate. Whwya (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The articles could each use some additional specific information but all are noteworthy. Surely any mine that exports 10 million tonnes of ore per year would be noteworthy? I also agree with the juvenile comments being completely unnecessary.--Hughesdarren (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a policy supporting your words. Whwya (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles comply with WP:NOTE as outlined in my inital comment. (or if you were alluding to the juvenile retorts part then WP:CIVIL would be the appropriate policy to refer to) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughesdarren (talk • contribs) 06:21, 7 November 2010

Another WP:VAGUEWAVE. Tell me how the above articles (unstruck ones) satisfy WP:GNG – "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

WP:CIVIL is a joke. Whwya (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each is a different mine, in a different location, with different start up dates, that produces a different output to each other. As I had written earlier Surely any mine that exports 10 million tonnes of ore per year would be noteworthy? It is these key pieces of informaion that allow each article to satisfy WP:NOTE. --Hughesdarren (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each mine being different does not warrant standalone articles.

To answer your question ("Surely any mine that exports 10 million tonnes of ore per year would be noteworthy?"): No, it wouldn't. Where did 10 million come from? 10 million is an arbitrary number chosen tailored to this situation to support keeping these articles. Whwya (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 million tonnes is an enormous ammount of Iron Ore, 100,000 tonnes of product would probably make a mine notable and this is 100x larger. The large scale is a point of notability, not just a magic number. At somewhere between $80-100 per tonne means that each mine is worth about $1 billion per year to the economy, I'm not saying that $1 billion is a magic number of notability either but many articles exist on millionaires who are worth alot less. Do you believe that each mine is not notable?--Hughesdarren (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do (the unstruck ones), or I wouldn't be nominating them for deletion. You're spitting out arbitrary values again. Where does it say that "100,000 tonnes of product would probably make a mine notable"? Your WP:OR is not based on policy and thus will be given less weight than supported statements. As for your comments about millionaires, that's irrelevant; see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Whwya (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue in circles, if you think that 10 million tonnes is insignificant and not notable then you are entitled to your opinion. It is unfortunate that a policy stating how much tonnage makes a minesite notable doesn't exist but if it did then wikipedia would have more policy statements than articles. We have a difference in opinion, the policies are unfortunatley subjective and open to interpretation. You and I have obvious difference in interpretations and, even more fortunately it seems that a consensus view has been formed WP:CONS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughesdarren (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 November 2010

Since it's subjective, your comments not supported by policy hold no weight. What is important here is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "Significant coverage" is pretty damn clear. I'm seeing no significant coverage.

Consensus has not yet been formed because some are trying to railroad this through. Most do not cite policy, but those who do have flawed arguments. Whwya (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You agree the policies are subjective, but everyone elses arguments are flawed? --Hughesdarren (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rational people would conclude that a consensus has been reached--Hughesdarren (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia is a joke? Interesting point of view. --Hughesdarren (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the uneven way in which WP:CIVIL is applied to common editors versus its application to admins. Whwya (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policy should apply equally to all, from what I see on this page only one person has failed to comply with it.--Hughesdarren (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be, but unfortunately, we've got some who call others "wankers". Whwya (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, on this page only one person is in clear violation --Hughesdarren (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have violated no policy. Whwya (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. These are global scale mines and are individually notable. –Moondyne 05:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a policy supporting your words. This is just another WP:VAGUEWAVE. As an admin, you are expected to understand policies and understand how to provide a constructive rationale at AfD. I've never had any expectation that admins understood policy. This vote confirms my beliefs. Whwya (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. Per above --Matthewdavies (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't have any opinions of your own on the matter? Are we playing follow the leader today? Whwya (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Based on the vindictive statements by nom throughout, and the incredible number of edits by them to this AFD, nomination was clearly bad faith. Someone has an axe to grind, and this is how they're trying to do it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very poor rationale. Not based remotely on policy. Whwya (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, check out WP:SIG. Whwya (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All These are mines of worldwide importance, and each has the potential for having a good stand-alone article. As far as scarcity of 3rd-party sources, it is just a fact of life for many articles on mines or mineral deposits that what is known about them depends on information directly or indirectly from the company or its employees. Many one-day-old articles are less than perfect, and these are no exception. However, this proposal for deletion appears to be nothing more than the vendetta of a single editor. Plazak (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but take a look at the following re: Whwya: [14],[15],[16],[17] and [18]. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as this was clearly a thoroughly bad-faith, pointy nomination by the since-indef'd Whwya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is most likely a sock of a previously indef'd user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - on the basis that most mining operations in Western Australia for a start are sufficiently variant in conditions - and can require significant annotation - due to a range of issues about conditions, enabling acts, infrastructure and transportation issues. As to the participants of this Afd being hounded by a now blocked user - it does not help the afd proposal one iota. Satu Suro 14:51, 7 November 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.