Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley 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   keep. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Valley coal mine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

no indication of WP:notability. No significant coverage in the one reference provided. Google not showing anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As there is a museum there now, we may be sure that the topic is well documented. Here's a source with a pointer to more.  The worst case is that we'd merge into some more general article such as South Staffordshire Coalfield. Warden (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not seeing anything to show the mine as being notable. The sources now in the article show it exists, the Express and Star article says a museum is using some of the old buildings - but the museum is not about the mine, it just happens to occupy the same space. noq (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep More information is needed but seems notable. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 13:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep -- South Staffordshire Coalfield is as yet a poor article, merely listing the coal seams. However, it would probably not be the right one for this to be redirected to, as that coalfiedl is regarded as ending at the Bentley faults. The right one would be called something like Cannock Chase Coalfield, but I do not think we have such an article.  I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to have an article on every coal mine in the UK.  Nevertheless, until there is an appropriate place for the article to be merged, I think we need to keep it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Are we looking at the same article? A grand total of four Google hits for "valley coal mine" cannock chase -wikipedia, three for "valley coal mine" hednesford chase -wikipedia. Warden's link makes no reference to a "valley coal mine," only referring to a mine and museum in the same general area. No mention of a mine by that name in the external link on the article either. The article seems to suggest there was a mine named "Valley Coal Mine" somewhere, and I'm just not seeing any evidence of that at all. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was also confused at first that even the external link didn't mention this site, but as it turns out it is normally referred to as "Valley Pit" and "Valley Colliery". Those searches turned out to be much more fruitful, see "valley pit" cannock chase -wikipedia, "valley colliery" cannock chase -wikipedia, and from GBooks "valley pit" cannock chase and "valley colliery" cannock chase. Sample links   . A merge to a Cannock Chase Coalfield article might be useful, but it seems clear that the site is of some historical significance by itself — Frankie (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2012 (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.