454:- 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.
517:
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
Knowledge (XXG) 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.”
658:- 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 Knowledge (XXG) is concerned.
499:
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
672:
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
500:
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.
470:
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
516:
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
637:. 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?
576:
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 Knowledge (XXG) source.
710:'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.
591:
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
471:
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.. --
731:
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. --
202:
285:
281:. 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
431:
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.
159:
308:
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.
706:
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
255:
403:. 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
196:
326:
283:
259:
91:
555:
And another journal paper that briefly mentioned “...potential gold mine (Kubi Gold
Project}...” This paper is: Nzulu, G., Eklund, P. and Magnuson, M., 2021.
106:
251:
755:
Places that cover mining news cover this. Enough coverage has been found to convince me its notable enough to have a
Knowledge (XXG) article.
132:
127:
86:
79:
17:
597:
136:
604:. Only on page 30 of Salifu et al. (2013), I found a single, brief reference to "...mining from the Kubi surface oxide deposit."
119:
287:
217:
100:
96:
184:
795:
40:
163:
384:
337:
594:
Gold
Production and the Ghanaian Economic Performance by Salifu1, O. and Oladejo, N. K. and Adetunde, I. A. (2013)
557:
Characterization and identification of Au pathfinder minerals from an artisanal mine site using X-ray diffraction.
178:
437:
295:
57:
778:
747:
719:
688:
667:
646:
613:
586:
511:
486:
465:
442:
418:
391:
364:
344:
317:
300:
270:
243:
174:
61:
791:
378:
331:
36:
224:
360:
238:
210:
123:
428:
432:
290:
53:
601:
556:
715:
684:
663:
642:
609:
582:
313:
263:
75:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
790:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
756:
740:
506:
479:
460:
190:
404:
400:
234:
356:
115:
67:
408:
728:
711:
707:
680:
659:
638:
605:
578:
309:
153:
534:
It is Nzulu, G.K., Bakhit, B., Högberg, H., Hultman, L. and
Magnuson, M., 2021a.
733:
632:
501:
472:
455:
676:
Check out how the article looked when it was nominated and see how it is now:
678:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kubi_gold_mine&oldid=1064730973
535:
325:
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
559:
Journal of Materials Science, 56(12), pp.7659-7669. (open access paper).
593:
536:
Elucidating Pathfinding Elements from the Kubi Gold Mine in Ghana.
786:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
677:
373:
149:
145:
141:
209:
727:The environmental controversy and sources found by
223:
237:- lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
798:). No further edits should be made to this page.
602:Gbireh, A.B., Cobblah, A. and Suglo, R.S. (2007)
250:Note: This discussion has been included in the
598:Analysis of the Trends of Gold Mining in Ghana
8:
538:Minerals, 11(9), p.912. (open access paper).
107:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
372:neither the content nor the sources it had
324:
249:
327:list of content for rescue consideration
233:Former gold mine does not seem to meet
355:, well sourced. Dem thar gold in AfD.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
254:lists for the following topics:
92:Introduction to deletion process
1:
318:03:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
301:10:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
271:06:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
244:05:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
374:when nominated for deletion
82:(AfD)? Read these primers!
815:
631:- I completely agree with
779:08:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
748:14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
720:07:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
689:07:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
668:20:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
647:19:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
614:21:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
587:05:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
512:19:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
487:23:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
466:19:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
443:18:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
419:16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
392:14:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
365:13:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
345:13:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
62:09:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
788:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
702:I already justified my
673:see that it is notable.
164:edits since nomination
80:Articles for deletion
656:Additional comment
347:
273:
97:Guide to deletion
87:How to contribute
806:
775:
772:
769:
766:
763:
760:
745:
738:
635:
509:
504:
484:
477:
463:
458:
415:
412:
390:
380:7&6=thirteen
343:
333:7&6=thirteen
268:
252:deletion sorting
228:
227:
213:
157:
139:
77:
34:
814:
813:
809:
808:
807:
805:
804:
803:
802:
796:deletion review
773:
770:
767:
764:
761:
758:
741:
734:
633:
507:
502:
480:
473:
461:
456:
413:
410:
377:
330:
264:
240:MrsSnoozyTurtle
170:
130:
114:
111:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
812:
810:
801:
800:
782:
781:
750:
722:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
674:
650:
649:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
492:
491:
490:
489:
448:
447:
446:
445:
422:
421:
394:
367:
349:
348:
321:
320:
303:
275:
274:
231:
230:
167:
116:Kubi gold mine
110:
109:
104:
94:
89:
72:
70:
68:Kubi gold mine
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
811:
799:
797:
793:
789:
784:
783:
780:
777:
776:
754:
751:
749:
746:
744:
739:
737:
730:
726:
723:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
697:
690:
686:
682:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
657:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
644:
640:
636:
630:
627:
626:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
558:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
537:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
515:
514:
513:
510:
505:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
488:
485:
483:
478:
476:
469:
468:
467:
464:
459:
453:
450:
449:
444:
441:
440:
436:
435:
430:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
417:
416:
406:
402:
398:
395:
393:
388:
387:
382:
381:
375:
371:
368:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
350:
346:
341:
340:
335:
334:
328:
323:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
302:
299:
298:
294:
293:
288:
286:
284:
282:
280:
277:
276:
272:
269:
267:
261:
257:
253:
248:
247:
246:
245:
242:
241:
236:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
161:
155:
151:
147:
143:
138:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
112:
108:
105:
102:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
84:
83:
81:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
54:Modussiccandi
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
787:
785:
757:
752:
742:
735:
724:
703:
699:
655:
628:
481:
474:
451:
438:
433:
409:
396:
385:
379:
369:
352:
338:
332:
305:
296:
291:
278:
266:CAPTAIN RAJU
265:
239:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
197:free images
357:Randy Kryn
792:talk page
725:Weak Keep
429:WP:NEXIST
399:- as per
256:Companies
37:talk page
794:or in a
434:Spinning
292:Spinning
160:View log
101:glossary
39:or in a
729:CT55555
712:CT55555
708:Paul H.
700:Comment
681:CT55555
660:Paul H.
639:Paul H.
606:Paul H.
579:Paul H.
310:CT55555
203:WP refs
191:scholar
133:protect
128:history
78:New to
629:Delete
452:Delete
405:WP:GNG
401:WP:HEY
235:WP:GNG
175:Google
137:delete
774:Focus
736:Green
704:keep
634:Pyrop
503:Pyrop
475:Green
457:Pyrop
439:Spark
297:Spark
260:Ghana
218:JSTOR
179:books
154:views
146:watch
142:links
16:<
753:Keep
716:talk
685:talk
664:talk
643:talk
610:talk
596:and
583:talk
427:Per
414:5969
411:Onel
397:Keep
370:Keep
361:talk
353:Keep
314:talk
306:Keep
279:Keep
258:and
211:FENS
185:news
150:logs
124:talk
120:edit
58:talk
50:keep
600:by
376:.
225:TWL
158:– (
718:)
687:)
666:)
645:)
612:)
585:)
407:.
363:)
329:.
316:)
289:.
262:.
205:)
162:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
60:)
52:.
771:m
768:a
765:e
762:r
759:D
743:C
714:(
683:(
662:(
641:(
608:(
581:(
508:e
482:C
462:e
389:)
386:☎
383:(
359:(
342:)
339:☎
336:(
312:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
156:)
118:(
103:)
99:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.