Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilogram ingot of Welsh gold


 * 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   redirect to Welsh gold. Consensus was not to Keep, there are arguments to redirect to two different pages, Welsh gold and Gwynfynydd. Both targets make sense, I decided to go with Welsh gold simply because it is a better sourced and better developed article. J04n(talk page) 03:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Kilogram ingot of Welsh gold

 * – ( View AfD View log )

no indication of notability outside either the mine or the Queen. No reason for a separate article purely for this. noq (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is false as this substantial gift has been noticed by independent sources. A good alternative to deletion might be to merge with Gwynfynydd.  Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn per WP:TRIVIA. Eusebeus (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:TRIVIA is a style guideline about the organisation of information within an article and its point is that articles should not contain sections of unrelated facts or miscellania. The correct shortcut for your argument is WP:IDL which gives as an example "Delete as trivia".  That tells us that this is an argument to avoid because it is a subjective opinion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep getting dragged to AN/I, there's a RFC/U about you, and your interventions are often counter-productive because of this instinctive peevishness. Trivia dragged out and placed into a standalone article is still trivia, and as such is embraced by the spirit of WP:TRIVIA. Eusebeus (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The spirit of WP:TRIVIA is conveyed by its nutshell: "Sections with lists of miscellaneous information (such as "trivia" sections) should be avoided as an article develops. Such information is better presented in an organized way.". The point it makes is guidance on how we best organise information, not to endorse any opinion about the value of such information.  The group notice for this discussion explains that "valid arguments citing appropriate guidelines will be given more weight" and so it seems necessary to point out when guidelines are cited in an inappropriate way.  The group notice also explains that "commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive.".  Please therefore retract your personal attack. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's "Goodnight" from him Eusebeus (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable trivia. Far too trivial to be viable as a stand-alone article, and I doubt it would be particularly relevant to the articles on the Queen or Mining in Wales if it were to be merged there. Reyk  YO!  02:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be very relevant to Welsh gold as it already contains similar material. That article is tagged as requiring a citation for this topic and we have citations here.  By bringing them together, we improve the encyclopedia.  Deletion would disrupt this constructive activity and so is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorted. The ingot is now mentioned in appropriate detail at the Welsh gold article and sourced to a reliable source, which makes this article redundant. Since no material was merged from here to there, and this title is an implausible search term, there is no longer any real reason to keep this article around. Reyk  YO!  10:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Welsh gold, as it seems that information has been merged there from this article it's important to keep the history around for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there hasn't. Reyk  YO!  10:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or procedural redirect. This incident itself comes nowhere near WP:EVENT but is worth a mention in an article about the gold mine. However, as there is no article about the Gwynfynydd gold mine, the next best destination is Welsh gold. But since this article is already mentioned there, there's no need for a merge. "Kilogram ingot of Welsh Gold" is not a useful redirect so I would probably recommend an outright deletion, but if it's necessary to preserve the edit history for attribution purposes, a redirect might still be necessary. Either way, a seperate article is the wrong place for this information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article about the mine is Gwynfynydd. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Article overlap. Ugh. Yes, Gwynfynydd may be the better location. However, that's a separate debate and doesn't really affect the outcome of a deletion discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not the most experienced or skilled of Wikipedia contributors. I created this article largely as a place to upload a photo of the  Welsh gold ingot presented to the Queen in 1986.  Other editors are probably not as aware as I am of the huge efforts being made by one commercial company to distort the facts to suit their financial plans, built around the forthcoming royal wedding.  Claims are being made that this ingot came from a different mine than the Gwynfynydd mine.  The photo of the ingot clearly shows the Gwynfynydd stamp.  Unfortunately I seem to be having problems uplaoding the photo, owing to my aforementioned lack of Wiki skills. Crefftwr (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've now uploaded the photo. Note that you don't necessarily have to create an individual article in order to put a photo there. As no-one is disputing putting this information about the kilogram ingot in another article (either Gwynfynydd or Welsh gold), it would probably make more sense to put the photo in that article. You will need to clarify exactly where the original photo came from - if you don't own the copyright to it, you may still be able to use the photograph under fair use, but you'll have to be clear where it came from. Finally, be careful about contributing to Wikipedia to prove a point. You've backed up the claim that the ingot came from the Gwynfynydd mine in one independent and one semi-independent source, which is good, but if this claim is disputed and other reliable sources quote that, you find that this also gets added to the article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:23, 13 March 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.