Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beowulf Mining

Beowulf Mining

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

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

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

Article is almost entirely sourced to press releases. Searching GNews indicated that most coverage seemed to be sourced from the same press releases. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A small company quoted on the London Alternative Investment Market. I can't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources - all I can find is stuff like company news releases, stock quotes, mentions on investment forums, etc. And the article has been built by the same person who has recently been misrepresenting company news releases as being more factual/positive than they really are -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, potentially speedy under CSD:G11. No significant coverage outside corporate press releases. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I considered G11, but thought we could do with a week to see if reliable sources would turn up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added Kallak Iron Deposit and Ruoutevare Iron Deposit, which were both created by the same author and are sourced by the same company news releases - after having removed more over-glowing material from Beowulf Mining, this is looking increasingly like an attempt to big up a non-notable company -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I redirected Kallak mine to Kallak Iron Deposit -- if KID is deleted, Km should be reverted to the version before User:Badricks's edit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beowulf and merge the others and rewrite. Beowulf is listed on the London /stock /exchange. listing on major exchanges is a sufficient criterion. There are 2 non-spam references in Reuters [1] [2] and confirmed in Forbes [3]. The articles on the iron deposits can be best merged if there are no articles talking about them in any other context; but if anyone can find sources talking about them in other contexts, then they should be separate articles also, That an article has PR references is reason to find better, not to delete. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed on AIM, not the main LSE, which is not usually considered a major exchange -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two Reuters sources are just run-of-the-mill reports of the company's own news and a rise in the share price, which Reuters carries about any quoted company that puts out a release, and the Forbes one is just a roundup of small cap share price moves. There is no significant coverage there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence: in notability terms, I think Beowulf actually passes WP:CORP, since there's substantial coverage in sources such as MJ and E&MJ. I'm less interested in more project-specific criteria such as "is it listed on a certain exchange", since those criteria vary considerably from the GNG and inevitably cause drama. However, if the article has been used primarily for promotion, then I'd happily step aside and let it be deleted (without prejudice to somebody coming back later and writing a wholly neutral, policy-compliant article from scratch). bear in mind that it's very hard to write an article describing a business without somebody thinking that the description is promotional. bobrayner (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd offer to rescue it myself and do a complete rewrite from independent sources, but I don't have spare time at the moment. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the solution to promotional content is editing. Deletion and rewriting is usually necessary only for libel and copyvio. I point out that this deletion request, apparently instigated by an anonymous editor admitting to using a range of ip addresses, has had publicity at AN/I This can be as much negative promotion as the article was positive. This discussion might be playing into the hands of speculators in whatever direction, and quiet editing would have been much more appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment Hi I am 'Badricks' the author of most of the content here. I am fairly new to wikipedia and all of this, but I will do my best to answer the criticisms levelled at this article. I've put my response in the order points appear on the talk page.

- References - The bulk, possibly all, of the references are from 'Investegate' which supplies RNS news releases. There has been coverage on/in Reuters, Forbes, Bloomberg, The Guardian, The FT, Proactive investors and others including in Swedish newspapers and websites. If referencing is an issue it wouldn't be hard to broaden the reference base. I am happy to invest time digging out other references if this helps.

- Promotional content - I have tried to keep the article neutral, however this is obviously quite difficult as was pointed out. I have avoided using purely speculative figures for tonnage and grades and only used numbers where data allows an estimate with a reasonable degree of confidence.

- I feel the article is decent, if a little jagged around the edges, and shouldn't be deleted. If you want to put any questions or comments to me please feel free. ( talk ) 18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The alternative stock exchange listing is not sufficient to show notability. Mining exploration is an industry notorious for fabulous claims and puffery. An article last month in the NY Times Magazine [4] is a profile on a gold prospector in the Yukon which touched upon how the industry is set up, here's a short excerpt:

"...how the exploration industry worked on a global scale. A handful of companies — “majors” — run the active mines and control the worldwide market. Majors are listed on the big stock exchanges, and they have nondescript names: BHP Billiton, Vale, Barrick, Rio Tinto. Meanwhile, thousands of smaller exploration companies — “juniors” — raise funds and chase ideas. Juniors are essential to the majors because they do much of the initial work in the exploration industry: sampling the soil, digging trenches, publicizing promising geological results. Publicity is key, because juniors raise money by selling their shares on penny-stock markets, like the TSX Venture Exchange in Toronto. Every hopeful glimmer can cause shares to rise, and when shares are under $1, a jump of a few pennies is a handsome return. Juniors are free to have aggressive names: Monster Mining, Bling Capital, Northern Tiger. They are striving to be noticed.

At the very bottom of this opaque and volatile market are mining claims like the ones Ryan was staking when he walked around the bush near Dawson, pounding wooden four-by-fours into the earth, sometimes attached to a steel rod if the ground was too hard penetrate. These stakes gave him an exclusive right to extract minerals. But if he didn’t work on the claim, or pay an additional fee, his rights would expire over time. Typically, prospectors support themselves by optioning claims to juniors in exchange for yearly cash payments and thousands of shares of penny stock."

The Reuters articles that DGG cites to are exactly the sort of claim puffery you expect to see, as Beowulf seems to be a "junior". But without knowledge of this industry, I can see why someone might think the subject is notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per WP:CORP. No significant coverage outside corporate press releases - coverage by the news organisation and industry magazines mentioned are merely barely concealed copies of the companies press releases - more news aggregation than journalism. 213.246.88.203 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the time that this article was allowed to exist with misinformation as part of a ramping campaign, Wikipedia has demonstrated that it is unable to effectively police itself. 213.246.88.203 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]