Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outpost Island Mine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Withdrawn - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outpost Island Mine

Outpost Island Mine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. Non-notable geological feature and/or Non-notable business per WP:CORP - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Great Slave Lake. Not that notable on its own, but seems to me to be notable enough to put in Great Slave Lake. delldot | talk 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added references from a museum in Yellowknife and from the Northwest Territories Geoscience Office, which is part of the Government of the Northwest Territories. --Eastmain 22:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The historical references supplied by Eastmain show notability. --Oakshade 02:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Historically significant mine site in the Northwest Territories. Other mines have entries in Wikipedia. --Ryansilke
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above votes. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment don't mean to be a jerk, but I am not going to read all of the references to figure out if this place is actually notable. Can some of the material in the references make its way into the article? Because the article, as written, does not currently assert notability. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep — Rayis 12:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but, like Dmz5, I'd love if the historical significance of the mine were better reflected in the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, historically significant mine site, just needs some expansion on its history and some sources cited in the article. Terence Ong 13:09, 30 January 2007 (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.