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. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kubi gold mine[edit]

Kubi gold mine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former gold mine does not seem to meet WP:GNG- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nominator asserts GNG without any rationale why the sources in the article are inadequate. Nor was there any response to the sources I offered on the talk page which imo do establish notability [[1][2][3][4]. SpinningSpark 10:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found reporting on it on Google Scholar and event reports of owners/investors planning to re-open the mine. I've added both in. It seems notable to me, with regards to the GNG. CT55555 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, well sourced. Dem thar gold in AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep neither the content nor the sources it had when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per WP:HEY. Definitely did not have anywhere near enough in-depth sourcing from independent sources at time of nom (meaning zero). But now there is barely enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:NEXIST it is not relevant what sources are actually cited in the article. The nom has still not given a rationale why the sources placed on the talk page (long before this AFD started) were deficient. SpinningSpark 18:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - To answer the various people who have asked, above, which sources do not meet WP:GNG, the answer is simple: all of them. Four of the sources given are primary, either direct publications from the mine's owners, or academic research reported direct from the primary journal source. The other two, although secondary sources, are brief throwaway mentions of Kubi in articles that are actually about another property owned by the same company. There is no evidence shown anywhere that this mine is independently notable. Pyrope 19:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ghana is the largest gold producer of Africa, and the 7th largest in the world. The question is, was this a minor unknown mine, or a significant one. Given Ghana's place in world gold mining, it deserves a closer look. African gold mines are probably not the sort of thing one can just Google and expect to determine notability on the first page of results, but that doesn't mean it's non-notable in the world of gold mining. I do encourage to mine more deeply given what we know so far, the prospects look promising.. -- GreenC 23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good questions, and ones that people who want to keep the page need to answer. If there are articles providing significant coverage in third-party sources then I'd be happy to see them. However, if there aren't then you cannot demonstrate notability. We don't assume that something is notable just because it is related to some other thing that is notable. For example, gold mining in Ghana is notable – and there are lots of articles and other information sources out there that comply with WP:GNG which demonstrate this – but does it therefore hold that every gold mine in Ghana is notable? No. Pyrope 19:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any of the sources needed demonstrate notability. I have searched through AAPG Datapages, Google Scholar, Geoscience World, GEOREF, Google Search, Knovel Library Interactive, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library. I only found two papers. Although I searched using variations of 1. kubi surface “oxide deposit”, 2. Kubi "gold deposit", 3. Kubi gold mine, and 4. kubi gold, I found nothing containing information useful for either a Wikipedia article or determining the notability of the Kubi Gold Mine. Most were very brief, largely uninformative. I found one sentence, repeated verbatium in a few articles, about the “kubi surface oxide deposit.” With all of the searching I found one journal paper that specifically mentioned the “Kubi Gold Mine.”

It is Nzulu, G.K., Bakhit, B., Högberg, H., Hultman, L. and Magnuson, M., 2021a. Elucidating Pathfinding Elements from the Kubi Gold Mine in Ghana. Minerals, 11(9), p.912. (open access paper).

And another journal paper that briefly mentioned “...potential gold mine (Kubi Gold Project}...” This paper is: Nzulu, G., Eklund, P. and Magnuson, M., 2021. Characterization and identification of Au pathfinder minerals from an artisanal mine site using X-ray diffraction. Journal of Materials Science, 56(12), pp.7659-7669. (open access paper).

Finally, there are innumberable primary annual reports, promotional material, and press releases about the "Kubi Gold Project" by Asante Gold Corp that are available online, but none of what I looked at is suitable as a Wikipedia source. Paul H. (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent time searching JSTOR. I used various variations of 1. kubi surface “oxide deposit”, 2. Kubi "gold deposit", 3. Kubi gold mine, 4. kubi gold, and 5. Kubi gold project and found nothing related to Kubi gold mine. I also looked at Gold Production and the Ghanaian Economic Performance by Salifu1, O. and Oladejo, N. K. and Adetunde, I. A. (2013) and Analysis of the Trends of Gold Mining in Ghana by Gbireh, A.B., Cobblah, A. and Suglo, R.S. (2007). Only on page 30 of Salifu et al. (2013), I found a single, brief reference to "...mining from the Kubi surface oxide deposit." Paul H. (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I completely agree with Pyrop. There is nothing that I have found so far using Google Scholar and GEOREF that demonstrates that this mine is independently notable. There are likely tens of thousands of abandoned gold mines in the world. What makes this one special / notable? Paul H. (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - There also exist innumerable gold mines in the world that have owners that plan to open them. In fact, many of the publicly stated "plans" to reopen an abandoned gold mine never happen. Thus, having owners state such plans does not make an abandoned gold mine special or notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Paul H. (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if it's operational, closed, planning to open. None of those things are part of the notability criteria. It either is notable for what ever reason it is notable for, or it is not. In the context of the secondary reliable sources that are now in the article, I hope you will see that it is notable.

Check out how the article looked when it was nominated and see how it is now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kubi_gold_mine&oldid=1064730973 CT55555 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I already justified my keep above, but seeing some were unconvinced, I researched more and got enough new content to create a Ecology section plus added some 1996 news about the mine. Just to address Paul H.'s point, whether the mine is operational or not is not a measure of it's notability, abandoned mines can be notable, we just need to follow the notability criteria. That said, as my recent edits show, it's about to be reopened anyway. CT55555 (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep The environmental controversy and sources found by CT55555 push this over to a Keep. When there are legal or human rights controversy like child labor, conflict resources, environmental harm to protected land, it elevates the topic to something more than another mine. -- GreenC 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Places that cover mining news cover this. Enough coverage has been found to convince me its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 08:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.