Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monash coal mine


 * 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. czar 06:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Monash coal mine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deprodded, but I concur with the PRODer (User:Calistemon; also ping User:JarrahTree and the deprodded, User:Andrew Davidson) that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline nor the more detailed Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mining-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 04:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: As per my original PROD, No indication of notability, no indication that this mine ever went into the operational stage. No such mine listed on the NSW Minerals Council Map of NSW Mines. No information on the mine on the stated owners, Yancoal, website. According to the Australian Government, it is under an exploration license only, no active mining. From this Singleton Argus article added as a source to the article by User:Eastmain, it appears even the exploration licence has expired. Additionally, the statement "one of the largest coal reserves in the world" (which was stated by User:Andrew Davidson as the reason for removing the PROD) is not mentioned in the associated reference at all and neither are the future production figures. Currently, there is no indication that this is a notable mining project at all, leave alone an active mine. Calistemon (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article correctly identifies the mine as a "a proposed coal mine". It has been a project (that is, a proposed mine) for a long time, and I think it is a notable project. Even if it is eventually abandoned for economic or environmental reasons, "once notable, always notable". I think thermal coal is a Bad Thing, but that isn't a factor in assessing notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * @Eastmain A, nobody has showed this was notable at any point in time. B, nobody is suggesting this should be deleted because 'coal is bad'. C, you failed to make any policy-based argument for keeping this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calistemon - and the fact there is nothing to indicate anything in https://trove.nla.gov.au/search?keyword.phrase=monash%20coal%20mine - a sure sign the original prod and this afd are indeed justified. There is simply not enough to justify even a 'proposed mine' article - it exists nowhere in space that would have carried WP:RS - the sources to 'carry' the article through to sustantiate an abandoned proposal do not exist. JarrahTree 14:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete there doesn't appear to be significant coverage of this in any good sources for the moment Avilich (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2021 (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.