364:. The little table at the bottom of the article makes it clear that the company has carried out no exploration activity at the project since 2016. There is no measured resource, only inferred, which is just a different word for "guessed". No indication that there really is "9.5 million tonnes" and "one of the largest tungsten reserves in Australia" at location. The archived source supports the first claim, without stating how it was measured (is it JORC complained?) and without any support for the second claim.
607:
or news reports that make claims for the investors/companies hoping to attract attention. The article is like a promotional item, claiming the discovered resource to be of a size and quality of interest. If wikipedia was to have all sites of similarly promoted exploration locations, we would never be able to adequately list them all.
424:
official list of principal mining projects an operation has to either had mineral sales valued at more than $ 5 million, or, for operations where such figures are not reported, had a minimum of 50 employee. We don't know the value of the operation back then but we know it didn't have 50 employees! In
419:
I think, the historic mine workings there and the modern mining project have to be seen as very separate, giving the largeness of the area and time that has since past. Little information seems to be available on the historic mine workings but what is indicates it to be very small. To qualify for the
606:
are not that unusual. However 'deposits' (which Bin Mai's edit history had a large and good selection around the world) mean nothing. When they are not developed into a producing mine, they are simply places where exploration and the related activities like drilling and testing, produces literature
601:
attempt to paint a story that makes an exploration site as something established - the list of similar sites that never materialised with multiple investor/owners who never managed to last the duration, would in effect be more than 500 similar sites in
Western Australia... none of them would be
447:
of the sale of the project in
December 2015. The interesting bid about the annual report is that it lists the 9.5 million tonnes as a measured resource, as stated in the article, that now does not appear on the lists anymore. My guess is that this value didn't hold up to proper scrutiny. Another
630:
There are always issues with getting a handle of the local context of some activities like mining, specially on some continents, where practices of promotion and gaining investment in production facilities, are of such an extraordinary variety - that a good amount of time (which was taken up by
244:, but at such small scale (8 employees) that it lacks notability. - was the reason for the initial prod, the AFD is supported by the absence of any material to substantiate the presence of a mine as claimed of such substance in the years between 2012 and 2022,
425:
regards to the the modern project, its just that, and not a very active one. I will try to dig up an old annual report for
Hazelwood Resources from the ASX and see if that produces something, but the modern project does not look very notable at all.
548:
If I edit the article now and cut it back like that virtually nothing will be left. Having stood for so long, I won't take any action until the outcome of the process here has been completed, whichever way the decision goes. Should the verdict be
499:
Sorry but you don't seem to understand that there is no mine there, contrary to what the article may state. If I removed the parts of the article that are either blatantly untrue or, at best, unverifiable, all that remains would be:
205:
639:
had leases with verifiable resources, or not. I have spent many hours searching archives in the Mines
Department of Western Australia, and the State Records of Western Australia for gold mines that failed,
375:
To sum it up, this is just another
Western Australian mining project that hasn't moved past the basic exploration stage. MINEDEX lists about 5,500 of those! It lacks all notability at this point.
405:
I find all this "it's old, it's speculative" thing to be opinion based and there are plenty of articles about former mines that have not been worked for decades, and rightly so.
421:
258:
199:
301:
162:
502:
The largest deposit is called the Big Hill
Tungsten Deposit. It consists of clean scheelite which is easy to extract. Tungsten was first mined in the area in the 1950s.
460:
per tonne of around $ 9,000, this would result in a historic production value of $ 160,000. Unless my calculations are wrong, this isn't a very notable amount at all.
485:
We should focus on the existence, or lack thereof, of reliable independence sources and avoid personal analysis based on our own ideas of what makes a mine notable.
94:
291:
109:
534:
I see. I think you should feel free to remove anything false or unverified. I'm open minded to being persuaded. Currently reflecting on my !vote.
616:
OK. I've scored out my keep for now. May switch to a delete. May remain silent/abstain. I appreciate your explanation, which I find convincing.
400:
Could some of the "misinformation" simply be changed for the accurate info? i.e. deletion is a last resort, improvements should be our default.
135:
130:
635:
prospectus's for mining projects, and annual reports to sort the statistics and explanations of activities, to work out whether some mining
285:
139:
482:
that says that notability is assume if mines have a certain size or production. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such criteria.
302:
https://geodocsget.dmirs.wa.gov.au/api/GeoDocsGet?filekey=c8e66b17-d79a-437a-b5b8-a61e095c6191-fpyyeiiwmscg4spvrt5fvyxydi79jcph6ntgscox
276:
I think we should avoid assessments based on number of employees, recency of activity, scale, and just concern ourselves if it passes
122:
236:
The article is misleading, there is not actually a mine there, its just an exploration site, with no activity since 2016 (see owners
89:
82:
17:
602:
sufficiently validly notable sites in wikipedian terms, unless they are out of ordinary circumstances. 'Exploration sites' called
516:
to see for yourself) and phrasing them to make it sound like they are actually mines. Articles like this one border on violating
220:
187:
343:
103:
99:
354:
237:
685:
40:
166:
371:
and can't find any mention of this mine. As a matter of fact, the digests list no
Tungsten production in WA at all!
181:
512:, has a long history of creating articles on undeveloped, non-notable mining projects (and not just those, check
652:
625:
611:
562:
543:
529:
494:
469:
434:
414:
384:
313:
265:
248:
64:
177:
126:
479:
508:
as part of this deletion discussion but my point is that this mine does not actually exist. The creator,
368:
227:
681:
36:
118:
70:
558:
525:
474:
I think you're missing my point. My point is that the size/production/age of the mine is not part of
465:
430:
380:
213:
513:
322:
I've scored out my keep as I am reading convincing arguments to delete. Currently reflecting.....
444:
440:
452:
has a bit on the historic production of the mine. At a historic production of 17.584 tonnes of
339:
193:
621:
539:
490:
453:
410:
309:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
680:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
517:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
505:
475:
394:
277:
649:
608:
554:
521:
461:
426:
376:
357:
of the proposed mine is really only proposed and nothing as such is there at the location.
262:
245:
390:
I !voted keep above, but am open minded to changing. I hope you don't mind if I ask you:
361:
295:
55:
593:
As proposer of this Afd, I am aware that in
Western Australia, and wider in Australia
347:
509:
617:
535:
486:
406:
305:
346:, the project is now owned by Tungsten Mining NL, a successor of the successor of
156:
449:
335:
For a start, it claims its a mine, it isn't, its an exploration project at best.
597:
mines are a problem to document, as the literature around the development of
457:
241:
644:
succeeded (yes both varieties)- and assure you that many mines, never
240:). Historical mining took place in the 1950s and 1960s, according to
369:
Official
Western Australia Mineral and Petroleum Statistics Digests
676:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
338:
It states that the mine is owned by
Hazelwood Resources,
393:
Is the recency/stage important here? That's not part of
152:
148:
144:
212:
422:
Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety
397:
either reliable sources consider it notable or not.
226:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
688:). No further edits should be made to this page.
257:Note: This discussion has been included in the
631:potential investors in the past) can be spent,
259:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
367:I have dug through the last ten years of the
298:(not very significant, but more than trivial)
8:
353:Back to MINEDEX, it makes it clear that the
286:Gemstones of Western Australia (2nd edition)
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
256:
340:a company that ceased to exist in 2016
332:There is so much misinformation there.
553:I will try to make it more accurate.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
478:. We're talking as if there is some
504:I get that you are trying to prove
24:
362:lists the project now as Big Hill
294:, 4 Nov 2006, by Robin Bromby,
95:Introduction to deletion process
1:
439:I dug up Hazelwood Resources
238:2021 annual report, page 21
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
705:
678:Please do not modify it.
653:12:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
626:12:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
612:12:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
563:12:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
544:12:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
530:08:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
495:14:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
470:04:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
435:03:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
415:03:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
385:02:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
314:02:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
266:01:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
249:01:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
65:09:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
280:. There is coverage in:
288:(significant coverage)
167:edits since nomination
648:despite their names.
83:Articles for deletion
420:Western Australian
360:Tungsten Mining NL
514:User talk:Bine Mai
441:2015 annual report
454:Tungsten trioxide
268:
119:Cookes Creek mine
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
71:Cookes Creek mine
63:
696:
231:
230:
216:
160:
142:
80:
62:
60:
53:
34:
704:
703:
699:
698:
697:
695:
694:
693:
692:
686:deletion review
173:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
702:
700:
691:
690:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
483:
458:historic price
403:
402:
401:
398:
373:
372:
365:
358:
355:Big Hill Plant
351:
336:
333:
326:
325:
324:
323:
317:
316:
304:(a paragraph)
299:
296:The Australian
289:
282:
281:
269:
254:
234:
233:
170:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
701:
689:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
654:
651:
647:
643:
638:
634:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
613:
610:
605:
600:
596:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
564:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:User:Bine Mai
507:
503:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
477:
473:
472:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
423:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
399:
396:
392:
391:
389:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
370:
366:
363:
359:
356:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:
331:
328:
327:
321:
320:
319:
318:
315:
311:
307:
303:
300:
297:
293:
290:
287:
284:
283:
279:
275:
274:
270:
267:
264:
260:
255:
253:
252:
251:
250:
247:
243:
239:
229:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
179:
176:
175:Find sources:
171:
168:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
677:
675:
645:
641:
636:
632:
603:
598:
594:
550:
501:
445:announcement
374:
329:
272:
271:
235:
223:
217:
209:
202:
196:
190:
184:
174:
76:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
633:researching
292:MINING WEEK
242:this source
200:free images
650:JarrahTree
609:JarrahTree
555:Calistemon
522:Calistemon
462:Calistemon
427:Calistemon
377:Calistemon
263:JarrahTree
246:JarrahTree
58:Sandstein
682:talk page
637:companies
599:prospects
456:, with a
348:Hazelwood
342:! As per
37:talk page
684:or in a
646:happened
595:proposed
480:WP:MINES
443:and the
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
618:CT55555
536:CT55555
518:WP:HOAX
487:CT55555
448:source
407:CT55555
344:MINEDEX
306:CT55555
206:WP refs
194:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
506:WP:GNG
476:WP:GNG
395:WP:GNG
330:Delete
278:WP:GNG
178:Google
140:delete
50:delete
604:mines
221:JSTOR
182:books
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
642:and
622:talk
559:talk
551:keep
540:talk
526:talk
491:talk
466:talk
450:here
431:talk
411:talk
381:talk
310:talk
273:Keep
214:FENS
188:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
228:TWL
161:– (
624:)
561:)
542:)
528:)
520:.
493:)
468:)
433:)
413:)
383:)
312:)
261:.
208:)
165:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
52:.
620:(
557:(
538:(
524:(
489:(
464:(
429:(
409:(
379:(
350:.
308:(
232:)
224:·
218:·
210:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
180:(
172:(
169:)
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.