Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical raw materials
- 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 no consensus. There is no reasonable prospect of any consensus in favour of deletion. Editors noting that the article needs work can continue to do so either boldly or on the talk page. This can alternatively be read as a SK1 close. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Critical raw materials (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)
This article is in very bad shape. It just lists random raw materials a few countries deem important. I feel like this information is insufficient for a stand-alone article, so should probably be merged or deleted altogether. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did write on the talk page that it needs expansion and I will be doing some of that myself. Nor are the raw materials "random", one of the points of expansion is the how and why the countries make these lista (EU + US is not a "few" and I will be adding the UK, etcetera). Merged with what? The article has just gone up, what's the big hurry to delete it? Wait a while and if it isn't expanded, then nominate it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- This article, with all due apologies, doesn’t seem to have a single focus. Either we need to userfy it, or decide what needs to be cut out in the next week or so. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Bit baffled by this comment, what are the multiple foci? From my perspective, the focus is on critical materials as designated by governments around the world and it easily meets GNG for that. Selfstudier (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I am sympathetic to the statement that doing an AfD ~2.5 hours after creation is a bit too rapid. I think the topic is notable, albeit the page needs work. Since the original editor is currently changing it a lot I would be OK with Draftify; I do think delete is too harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2024 (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.