Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beowulf Mining


 * 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   delete. Delete all. I'm a little surprised that the two deposits articles wern't discussed much, so I'd be open to a good argument to restore one or both of them and rerun the AFD on those, but there's a consensus that all three articles should be deleted here. Courcelles 01:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Beowulf Mining

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is almost entirely sourced to press releases. Searching GNews indicated that most coverage seemed to be sourced from the same press releases. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. A small company quoted on the London Alternative Investment Market. I can't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources - all I can find is stuff like company news releases, stock quotes, mentions on investment forums, etc. And the article has been built by the same person who has recently been misrepresenting company news releases as being more factual/positive than they really are -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, potentially speedy under CSD:G11. No significant coverage outside corporate press releases. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered G11, but thought we could do with a week to see if reliable sources would turn up. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added Kallak Iron Deposit and Ruoutevare Iron Deposit, which were both created by the same author and are sourced by the same company news releases - after having removed more over-glowing material from Beowulf Mining, this is looking increasingly like an attempt to big up a non-notable company -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I redirected Kallak mine to Kallak Iron Deposit -- if KID is deleted, Km should be reverted to the version before User:Badricks's edit. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I please point out that the information in both the 'Kallak Mine' and 'Ruoutevare mine' articles is wrong and misleading and given that some of the complaints at this article are on just that surely it makes sense to delete those too, should these pages be deleted? There is also this sorry article regarding a Beowulf property - Munka Mine. All 3 are flawed and full of errors - Why would a Molybdenum mine produce Iron? And I don't think you can call something a mine unless it is/has been mined.

Badricks (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Beowulf and merge the others  and rewrite. Beowulf is listed on the London /stock /exchange. listing on major exchanges is a sufficient criterion. There are 2 non-spam references in Reuters   and confirmed in Forbes .   The articles on the iron deposits can be best merged if there are no articles talking about them in any other context; but if anyone can find sources talking about them in other  contexts, then they should be separate articles also, That an article has PR references is reason to find better, not to delete.     DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's listed on AIM, not the main LSE, which is not usually considered a major exchange -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The two Reuters sources are just run-of-the-mill reports of the company's own news and a rise in the share price, which Reuters carries about any quoted company that puts out a release, and the Forbes one is just a roundup of small cap share price moves. There is no significant coverage there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On the fence: in notability terms, I think Beowulf actually passes WP:CORP, since there's substantial coverage in sources such as MJ and E&MJ. I'm less interested in more project-specific criteria such as "is it listed on a certain exchange", since those criteria vary considerably from the GNG and inevitably cause drama. However, if the article has been used primarily for promotion, then I'd happily step aside and let it be deleted (without prejudice to somebody coming back later and writing a wholly neutral, policy-compliant article from scratch). bear in mind that it's very hard to write an article describing a business without somebody thinking that the description is promotional. bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd offer to rescue it myself and do a complete rewrite from independent sources, but I don't have spare time at the moment. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the solution to promotional content is editing. Deletion and rewriting is usually necessary only for  libel and copyvio. I point out that this deletion request, apparently instigated by an anonymous editor admitting to using a range of ip addresses, has had publicity at AN/I  This can be as much negative promotion as the article was positive. This discussion might be playing into the hands of speculators in whatever direction, and quiet editing would have been much more appropriate.    DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Author Comment Hi I am 'Badricks' the author of most of the content here. I am fairly new to wikipedia and all of this, but I will do my best to answer the criticisms levelled at this article. I've put my response in the order points appear on the talk page.


 * References - The bulk, possibly all, of the references are from 'Investegate' which supplies RNS news releases. There has been coverage on/in Reuters, Forbes, Bloomberg, The Guardian, The FT, Proactive investors and others including in Swedish newspapers and websites. If referencing is an issue it wouldn't be hard to broaden the reference base. I am happy to invest time digging out other references if this helps.


 * Promotional content - I have tried to keep the article neutral, however this is obviously quite difficult as was pointed out. I have avoided using purely speculative figures for tonnage and grades and only used numbers where data allows an estimate with a reasonable degree of confidence.


 * I feel the article is decent, if a little jagged around the edges, and shouldn't be deleted. If you want to put any questions or comments to me please feel free. ( talk ) 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: The alternative stock exchange listing is not sufficient to show notability.  Mining exploration is an industry notorious for fabulous claims and puffery.  An article last month in the NY Times Magazine  is a profile on a gold prospector in the Yukon which touched upon how the industry is set up, here's a short excerpt:
 * "...how the exploration industry worked on a global scale. A handful of companies — “majors” — run the active mines and control the worldwide market. Majors are listed on the big stock exchanges, and they have nondescript names: BHP Billiton, Vale, Barrick, Rio Tinto. Meanwhile, thousands of smaller exploration companies — “juniors” — raise funds and chase ideas. Juniors are essential to the majors because they do much of the initial work in the exploration industry: sampling the soil, digging trenches, publicizing promising geological results. Publicity is key, because juniors raise money by selling their shares on penny-stock markets, like the TSX Venture Exchange in Toronto. Every hopeful glimmer can cause shares to rise, and when shares are under $1, a jump of a few pennies is a handsome return. Juniors are free to have aggressive names: Monster Mining, Bling Capital, Northern Tiger. They are striving to be noticed.
 * At the very bottom of this opaque and volatile market are mining claims like the ones Ryan was staking when he walked around the bush near Dawson, pounding wooden four-by-fours into the earth, sometimes attached to a steel rod if the ground was too hard penetrate. These stakes gave him an exclusive right to extract minerals. But if he didn’t work on the claim, or pay an additional fee, his rights would expire over time. Typically, prospectors support themselves by optioning claims to juniors in exchange for yearly cash payments and thousands of shares of penny stock."
 * The Reuters articles that DGG cites to are exactly the sort of claim puffery you expect to see, as Beowulf seems to be a "junior". But without knowledge of this industry, I can see why someone might think the subject is notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all Per WP:CORP. No significant coverage outside corporate press releases - coverage by the news organisation and industry magazines mentioned are merely barely concealed copies of the companies press releases - more news aggregation than journalism. 213.246.88.203 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Given the time that this article was allowed to exist with misinformation as part of a ramping campaign, Wikipedia has demonstrated that it is unable to effectively police itself. 213.246.88.203 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 months? call the wahmbulance, Mr. IP.  I'll find you 8 year old shitty articles if you really care.  But you don't, because no one looks at them.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * News coverage There has been news coverage in Sweden recently . Today Beowulf Mining is most definitely a junior, there is no doubt there. So at what point is it permissible for an AIM listed company to have a Wikipedia page? Beowulf have discovered what initial drilling results suggest is an enormous ore body. Should therefore any article discussing this (the Kallak deposit) be deleted/deferred until such time that these results can be confirmed or at least estimated to an international standard? Regardless, Beowulf still exists as a company so why would the entire wiki page be forfeit? Ruoutevare and Ballek/Lulepotten both possess JORC compliant inferred resource estimates so I don't see why these would be considered for deletion. badricks (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * and more news in English and from Reuters here . Not just a rewritten press release, but actual journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badricks (talk • contribs) 21:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Badricks, you seem really invested in this subject! (pun intended??)--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could say that - I'm not affiliated or employed by the company but I do hold stock here. If it were my intention to 'ramp' the share by creating a wikipedia page I've obviously failed pretty miserably if check the share price . I found the whole company and its area of business interesting and I'd always fancied making a wikipedia page so I thought - why not. Given this long discussion and the fact that those in the know all seem to be touting for deletion, I kind of wish I'd invested (pun intended) my time in something else! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badricks (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That Reuters story is only reporting on a news release from the company itself - Reuters does that with just about every RNS released by the LSE -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't simply an RNS rehash. Parts make reference to a news release by Beowulf however a site visit was organised with Reuters to, presumably, coincide with the news release. Quote: "...Chairman Clive Sinclair-Poulton told Reuters during a recent trip to the facility.". The article makes reference to tonnage increases that are nowhere to be found within the RNS release. I will admit that one article by Reuters does not make for a hefty flow of news, but to suggest that all news about Beowulf is aggregated from RNS feeds is equally not true. Other news sources aren't that hard to find either   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badricks (talk • contribs) 21:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it's *just* a rehash, I meant it's a report of the company's own announcements. Yes, Reuters has added something to the RNS content, but what it has added is sourced first hand from the company itself - it's still just reporting the company's own statements, which is not really the in-depth independent coverage that WP:NCORP requires.


 * Delete all per Boing!, non-notable per WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge a serch of The Times brings up lots but they all seem to redirect to todays paper. Lots seem to be just referencing how they have been doing, but some seem to be more significant.  No real reason for a all of a junior mining companies properties to have an article, especially if they are not in production, but they can be covered in the main article.  --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete All as per Boing's comments and WP:CORP. - SudoGhost&trade; 08:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as Boing! said. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

AGF

 * Comment: Can we try to AGF, please? Comments like "misinformation as part of a ramping campaign", and implications that other editors are unduly influenced by a stake in the business, would be pretty severe accusations if true. I would suggest that people either present some firm evidence, or retract their accusations. bobrayner (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I believe there is a "misinformation" attempt in any way, but the IP at Talk:Beowulf Mining seems to suggest that User:Badricks is the same "Badrick" on some forum related to the company's stock. I'm not suggesting that this is true in any way, but I'm just placing this here as it seems to explain the reasoning behind the comments. - SudoGhost&trade; 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but what does AGF mean? And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, or ''assume good faith. - SudoGhost&trade; 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SudoGhost. There are a lot of acronyms to learn here, LOL. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm posting this here as well for other users who might now know, but Glossary helps in identifying terms used on Wikipedia. - SudoGhost&trade; 02:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I should have linked AGF so that the meaning would be clear to all readers. Thanks, SudoGhost, for your help. bobrayner (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.