Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wheelbarrow 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 21:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wheelbarrow Mine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article about a mine which may or may not have been found. The single ref from 1940 is also speculative about whether what was found was or was not the mine. Fails WP:GNG by a spectacularly wide margin. Although most places are judged as inherently notable, this article cannot actually say whether this is a place and whether what may or may not have been found in 1940 was or was not that place.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. I have just added three cite books, something that should have been done WP:BEFORE, and I have corrected the lat and long with data from The Idaho Geological Survey's Mines and Prospects Database. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 20:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sam Tailor; the additional sources make all the difference. —Swpbtalk 20:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, with the new sources.Kavdiamanju (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2015 (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.