Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanish American 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    Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Spanish American Mine

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

Notability not established. No citations. Johnfos (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep--notability is not established in the article, but the author and the nominator could have found the following references using Google Books,, of which this and this suggest (these are only snippet views) some notability. I'm no expert here, but surely some mining buff can make something out of it. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--As a historical uranium mine in the Algoma mining district of Ontario, Its notability is established and worthy of an encyclopedia entry. I am sure this arguement has already been established elsewhere.  I have seen similar arguements recently for abandoned rail lines and stations.  This article was just created as part of a cataloging of historical mines in the Elliot Lake area and I have every intention of expanding it. Turgan Talk 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would really help if you include a source or two when you write the stub, to avoid precisely this kind of situation. Drmies (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. Some "subjects" get jumped on very quickly.  I have added two sources to the article, which when combined with those mentioned above should meet the notability requirements.  Turgan Talk 08:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources are available as per previous editors's comments. I would also like to point out that the article was tagged for notability at creation which is fine given the unreferenced stub state at the time, but to time needs to be allowed for editors to correct the identified problem, and not to immediately slap an AFD up. --- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reality check: Any single sentence article without citations is likely to be nominated for deletion sooner or later. Every time we start a new article we are told "Articles that are created without references, or have extremely little content, are likely to be deleted very quickly (possibly within a few minutes). To avoid this, make sure the article includes references to reliable, published sources..." Johnfos (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that. But AFD is the last resort, and you did in fact tag it for notability, and then instead of allowing time for the issue you identified to be addressed, you brought it to AFD immediately.  so why bother having these article improvement tagas? -- Whpq (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a valid arguement, however when patroling new pages we are also told "Be hesitant to list articles on Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion if there's a chance they could be improved and made into a meaningful article. Tag them for cleanup instead. Try not to step on people's toes. Many times, users will start an article as the briefest of stubs, and then expand it over the succeeding hours or days." The article in question was not just a single sentence article, there were actually two, plus a location map and coordinates, a "requires expansion" tag, and it was tagged and rated for WikiProject Mining so other project members would easily find it and contribute if they were able.  Turgan Talk 02:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel I have "stepped on your toes", apologies. I did not mean to do that. Johnfos (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If I can be dogmatic, without the desire to step on anyone's toes, I think authors should write their articles and immediately include a reference or two; I also think that someone who tags an article should look around for some sources before sending it to AfD. I agree, for instance, that tags should stand for a while before the article gets proposed for deletion. My two cents. At any rate, I think it's looking like this might stay, if Turgan, who knows this subject matter (I suppose), can plug in the two references I found, and the two links added to the article--but please do it with specific (inline) citations. I could do it, but I just don't know this stuff well enough. Turgan, the sooner you do this, the more easily you'll convince other editors who get to weigh in on this matter that the subject is notable. Now, I'll pour a drink for all three of you, we'll toast, and be friends. Si? Drmies (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep referenced, and its scale was large enough to make it notable. ¨¨ victor  falk  11:10, 31 January 2009 (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.