Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beowulf Mining (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was Speedy Keep #1, nomination withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding deletes. ~ GB fan 15:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Beowulf Mining
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small mining company. Protests and usual stock coverage sites aside I'm not convinced this company passes WP:NCORP Uhooep (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator based on arguments below and based on GNG. Uhooep (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Last time had an argument based on a stock exchange last time-- didn't agree. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There are some companies listed on stock markets with low/insignificant market capitalisations, so being listed shouldn't warrant de facto notabilty in itself, and certainly not all listed companies are notable. I believe it should be based on coverage (beyond stock reports etc) and or whether a company is a component of a flagship indices, such as the FTSE 100/FTSE 250, which in this case it's not. Uhooep (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment on comment (you don't have to say "comment"--that's obvious): I think that in this case it should be kept on the basis of its supercool name. :) Drmies (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I had based my argument on it being listed on the LSE; it was pointed out to me there that I was mistaken--it's a subsidiary board, AIM. That doesn't have the same implication of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Last time I went for Delete, as the only sources were investment related (mostly Investegate, which is a stock market news/commentary site) and essentially just regurgitation of the company's own RNS releases. The only claim to notability seemed to be "It's a company on AIM", and AIM is not a major stock market - its requirements are so weak, just about any bunch of ragamuffins can get a listing (though it does also host some impressively successful companies, like ASOS, with billions in revenue). Anyway, stop rambling Boing... This time I'm also seeing wider coverage such that there's appeal to more than just stock market nerds, with the conflict with the Sami people even making the BBC, U.S. News & World Report, UPI, mining sources (covering the dispute and not just run-of-the-mill mining reports), and it appears to have attracted significant Swedish coverage. Enough for GNG, I think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some extended coverage of the company in mining industry publications was in the article, and more had been mentioned in the first AfD, although I had to use a lot of Wayback Machine archives (one domain is now a Bitcoin mining site). I also found more news coverage, both Swedish and as mentions, some English-language, as I had when I helped expand the replacement article in 2013. Much but not all of this relates to the Kallak mine; I have been able to recast the article covering also the company's original foundation and its exploration at Ruoutevara and Ballek. I left out reports of rises in the company's stock, and the article makes relatively little use of sources aimed explicitly at potential investors. I believe I can now advocate for keeping it on GNG grounds. It should be noted that the Kallak, Ruoutevara, and Ballek links all go to articles on the company's mining explorations at those sites, and all predate this article, although probably not the earlier, more promotional article deleted after the first AfD. They provided me with some usable references but are dominated by investor-aimed and press release-based sources. If this article is kept, it might be worth considering redirecting all three to it. Although the years-long dispute over Kallak takes up a large part of the article, I believe there's enough to preserve the company article and overcome the argument that it is known only for that dispute, which I had continued while seeking sources and rewriting; the sources now only visible at the Wayback Machine help demonstrate that the news coverage has not been only for that dispute. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2018 (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.