Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of collieries in Yorkshire 1984-present with dates of closure


 * 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. I suggest to continue the discussion about a new name on the talk page.  Sandstein  11:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

List of collieries in Yorkshire 1984-present with dates of closure

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an unsourced list. It is also a breach of WP:PLACE ("We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries".), by way of asserting Yorkshire exists in 1984 and beyond. --Jza84 | Talk  18:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   --Jza84 |  Talk  18:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename as "List of collieries in West and South Yorkshire 1984 to present with dates of closure". The list contains information which is useful to family, local, social and industrial historians and could be sourced retrospectively, as are many articles.--Harkey (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would there be sources provided though? I'm sure it'd be helpful, but its not verifiable currently. --Jza84 | Talk  19:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been asking for sources since August. Did you not look for sources yourself in all that time?  I found this within 10 minutes, most of which was spent looking at ISBN 0415111145, which I've just used to improve British Coal.  Problems with the word "Yorkshire" in the title can be fixed by use of the "move" button, and don't require anyone to delete anything.  Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an unpaid volunteer, with little interest in this field, so no I didn't look (instead I helped get an FA to the main page in that time), and have no intention of looking for such an arbitrarily policy breaching named-article. Asking for sources in August was a courtesy. Who on earth is going to look for a list of colleries in West and South Yorkshire in 1984 anyway? Why not Lancashire and Oxfordshire in 1985? --Jza84 | Talk  19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We're all unpaid volunteers. It's not something that is special to you alone.  And yet many of us look for sources not only in fields that we have no interest in, but in fields that we even consider distasteful.  It's part of collaboratively building an encyclopaedia.  Asking for sources isn't a courtesy.  It's a standard part of Wikipedia triage. Your first question is a loaded question based upon the false premise that this is a list of collieries in 1984, and is thus unanswerable.  As for your second, see list of collieries in Lancashire 1854-present. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking for sources is a courtesy - I could've just removed all unsourced material blind (per policy), then speedy-deleted this myself. Also, the Lancashire list does not include Oxfordshire - you're missing my point that combining two counties is arbitary, and doesn't reflect real world practice (WP:SYNTH, WP:NEOLOGISM?). And I do not believe I said being unpaid is special (that's your inference), but the burden of sourcing is on the person who adds content, not those who challenge it (see WP:V). This is pretty basic editorial stuff; I appreciate your citing your own lengthy self-written pages here, but I'm working within the bounds of real, codified, consensual policy. If many of you want to find sources in your spare time, then now is the time to do it - I'm challenging you here (isn't that the point of AFD?)... --Jza84 | Talk  21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually its the "Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire Coalfield" which adjective would we have to remove? The word Yorkshire is being used as an adjective as it often is, not a proper noun.--Harkey (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jza84 is incorrect when he says that it does reflect real world practice to link West and South Yorkshire together; the two are constantly linked. The phrase Yorkshire is far more common that saying W.Yorks, S.Yorks., etc.  (By the way, 6 of the pits were in North Yorkshire.)  I was unaware of the Lancs list beforehand, but it is interesting to note that this does not abide by the policy interpretation that Jza84 is invoking: many of the pits listed are now in Greater Manchester.  Why has that page not been tagged?  I feel that Jza84's application of Wikipedia policy is rather disproportionate to such a small issue, especially when he admits that he knows little of the subject matter that the article was written for.  If all else fails, we can settle for calling it "... in Yorkshire and the Humber", which is a government region.  Nothing in Wikipedia policy can challenge that.  Epa101 (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The linking of South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire collieries is not artificial - when people talked of "Yorkshire miners" they did not distinguish between the two counties. To compare this pair of adjacent counties to a combination like "Lancashire and Oxfordshire" is not appropriate. PamD (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll attempt to obtain the following publication to verify the information. --Harkey (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just Googled "colliery closure dates" and the article in question came up on the first page. It's a search term that I might have used when compiling local or family histories.--Harkey (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe just change to "List of collieries in the Yorkshire coalfield 1984-present with dates of closure".--Harkey (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I created the page a very long time ago. My main resources were Colin Jackson's A to Z of Colliery Names, Pre-1947 Owners, Areas & Dates and the Northern Mining Research Network.  I shall go onto the page now and add these are references.  On the subject of historical counties, I did not intend the article as some sort of political statement in support of Yorkshire's boundaries, and I think that anyone who does is rather sensationalist.  The suggestion by Hackney Lodger might be a good compromise here.  I grouped the collieries in terms of district as this seemed more useful than doing it by West, South, North.  For example, it seemed misleading to say that there were 20 collieries in West Yorkshire when 15 of those were in just one small distict.  Epa101 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Attempted to add before above statement but got edit conflict, so added any way,)Keep - Dont think its the neccesarily the best Name for an article, but to claim it breaches WP naming convention when the whole area in terms of Coal mining was refered to in general terms as the Yorkshire Coal Field, it a bit of thin reason to delete it. (Should WP:Yorkshire be broken up into the administrative areas then ? under said naming convention). Agree its un sourced but as the list links to multiple articles are they all not relavent. Do we deleted every article with no refs ? because a large number of what are now decent articles started with vauge references or no refs. As a stand alone article it has more use than a lot of the Bulk greated Stubs for places and streams and creeeks etc that can be found. Agree you did put a note on the talk page asking for refs. So I'd say keep & rename or merge, into an article on the coal fields of  ? (Northern England as Yorkshire not allowed apparently)  If we found it others will. (Note have no association with mining other than Tagging for Project Yorkshire, Sheffield and Derbyshire aricles that fall under there areas) -  BulldozerD11 (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources have been added now.
 * P.S. I would rather have this article expanded to include all 1984 collieries rather than see its deletion. Yes, I shall try to do the work myself if need be. I can understand why someone from anywhere else in the country might wonder why Wikipedia did not cater to their area, so it might be advisable. However, that should not be an excuse for deleting the valuable information that is already assembled on Yorkshire. Epa101 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename- (a) drop the "with dates of closure" - lists often contain useful information, and it needn't be specified in the article title(eg Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom isn't Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom with length and location); (b) consider changing to List of collieries in Yorkshire and the Humber 1984-present to use a current region name.   It seems a useful compilation of information which has a place in WP.  PamD (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, and rescue I disagree a little with Pam about how to do it: I'd keep the closing dates, but add the date of starting, at least approximately, and make stub articles on every one of them. DGG (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to list of collieries in Yorkshire, then add other colleries in Yorkshire and other notable information, such as date they opened, and possibly location, maximum workforce or output. Warofdreams talk 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I was thinking that a table would be a better way of representing everything.  I can categorise them by district easily enough once I get some time.  My only reservation would be over other collieries in Yorkshire, seeing as there used to hundreds.  My home town of Ossett had 8 pits at the time of the 1926 strike yet its population back then was around 10,000.  I doubt that any Wiki user is sufficiently committed to list them all, although I might yet be surprised on this issue.  Epa101 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of collieries in Yorkshire operating since 1984. This is a legitimate subject.  Such lists are a useful means of identifying missing articles (by redlinking).  Such articles are frequently wholy unreferenced, becasue the references are better placed in the articles on items listed.  I would oppose the conversion into an article on all collieries in Yorkshire, since the list would be almost endless.  It was formerly common to talk of the Derbyshire coalfield as distinct from the Yorkshire one; no doubt that is semantics, since they are continuous.  If a separate article is wanted on the Debyshire/Nottinghamshire coalfield (or others), it can no dount be created.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've linked a lot of the names to "Missing articles" or the Village if it talks about the mine, as a expanded section in that articles better than loads of stubs. (note several of the formmer pits still have Football teams named after them with Wiki article, that have not been linked to but a short pargraf in the article and a back link would be useful.
 * If it was renamed to a general collierires list it can be split when it gets too big (if ever). Lists are usefull as it stops articles filling up and links related items Categories do not always work for sorting - BulldozerD11 (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (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.