Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum


 * 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.  Malinaccier ( talk ) 19:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The organisation appears not notable. All current sources are from the organisation. I did a full WP:BEFORE and found only brief passing mentioned in google news, only their own material in google scholar and nothing of note in google books. In addition to that, the article is in bad shape, most of it uncited and heavily edited by an account with a name matching the organization CT55555 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I struggled a bit with the templates, but have notified WikiProject Organizations, WikiProject Mining, and the original author. I decided not to ping the User CIM web editor to avoid putting them in what seems like a likely a conflict of interest scenario. CT55555 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A bot has since notified that user anyway. The closer of this AfD will take any COI into account. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. North America1000 01:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep it is notable - and similar organisations in other countries have healthy viable articles - original editor long gone. The problem with 'parallel universes' in sourcing, means a simple sitting on google as the only source of knowledge - is a serious problem.  It is likely there is a canadian editor with hands on sufficient resources - maybe even something like 'Trove' that we have in Australia. It is definitely notable, just if you look in the wrong corners it will appear that way, it is the ingenuity of the editor who knows where to look, that it can be proved to be adequately notable. JarrahTree 03:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the two most common ways I spend my time on Wikipedia are writing about mining in Canada and arguing to keep articles at AfD. The two biggest articles I've created are both about mining in Canada. This is the exact area I tend to write about, and I don't think I've ever before now proposed to delete an article.
 * I find notable subjects easy to prove notable at AfD by providing sources that prove notability. The absence of that, does suggest a lack of notability. CT55555 (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The age and transitions alone are sufficient for identifying and showing a developing organisation over time - viz...https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1065581 https://trove.nla.gov.au/people/1144423  and that in itself if carefully outlined is very sufficient... JarrahTree 09:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't significant coverage, as per WP:SIGCOV. CT55555 (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it isnt - but an indicator that a historical context included could actually be part of an improved article... multiple names and name changes are not sufficient in any way... JarrahTree 12:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * coverage in media in direct reference to the organisation is perhaps a furphy. The spread and extent of the involvement in the wider mining community in Canada is found clearly in the category of the subject Category:Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum the awards and the individuals and companies that are found in the category involved with the organisation are not in a narrow scope or non notable area... the awards alone are specifically related to wideness of the activity of the organisation within Canada.  The challenge is to understand the notability is probably verified in effect by tangential sources/material, not direct. JarrahTree 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep perhaps the style is not encyclopaedic, but it is not the reason to delete the article. The institute with 100+ years history and not-for-profit orientation. --Bigneeerman (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Not much in GScholar, JStor has more promising results. They publish the "Journal of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum" and I get a few scattered hits describing activities in Zimbabwe. Otherwise, just listed as a place that an individual works. It's been around 100 yrs, I'd expect further sources to turn up. Some coverage about an appointment to the top position, they also give out an award related to mining, the newspaper has a few mentions of it. Should at least have enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep While I understand User:CT55555 concern about the lack of reliable sources and believe the article needs a fair bit of clean up work, this source seems to hint that it is a well established society with 124 years of history and a substantial membership. Authority control also has an entry for it on the Library of Congress. More importantly, the Institute also seems to set the Mineral resource classification standard for Canada, judging by this article and similar sources and that alone would make the organisation quite important in a mining country like Canada, similar to the JORC Code in Australia, as it would be quoted as a bench mark index in a very large number of official reports on the Toronto Stock Exchange. For an example, see Kinross Gold's 2021 Annual report (page 58). A very specialist organisation for sure with little coverage in mainstream media but notable nevertheless. Calistemon (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the style that concerns me (that could be fixed) it's the lack of independent sourcing, the lack of notability. 100+ years of not being notable shouldn't get anyone into Wikipedia, I think. "Not for profit" that is technically true, but they are a trade association, the profits are made elsewhere, they are not a charity. CT55555 (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Mining in Canada - The lack of sourcing is the deal breaker. We can't depend on info in primary sources to ascertain notability; it has to be based on coverage of the organization. In this case, I can't find anything significant, per notability guidelines. The Speciation source cited above appears to be a commercial trade organization, so this is likely a self-submitted directory entry.  FWIW, Speciation itself doesn't appear notable. The Northern Ontario announcement of the group's new president is from a thinly repurposed press release, and has almost nothing about the organization.  I tried to approach this by looking up the magazine's impact, and found this [], suggesting not much of an impact. For an organization that's supposedly been around for so long, the lack of coverage is a red flag. Fails WP:GNG. But as an alternative to deletion, the single source about the President can be used to support a merge of minimal selected info to Mining in Canada. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  18:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, no policy-based rationale for deletion. This is a classic example of why WP:N is not a basis for deletion, since it is about what merits a separate article, not what merits deletion. Merging and redirecting to Mining in Canada, as proposed above, seems like a very cromulent solution. But nobody needs AFD for that. -- Visviva (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2022 (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.