Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coal in New Zealand

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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Coal in New Zealand

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Coal in New Zealand (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 two sentences of numbers and a list of see also links. What I think could be added is more appropriate for Mining in New Zealand#Coal. —Panamitsu (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep - I started this article as a stub for consistency with other article about Coal by country while researching the Huntly rail bridge bombing that occurred during the 1951 New Zealand waterfront dispute, when I realised the existing section about coal in the article about Mining in New Zealand barely scraped the surface of the topic, and a whole separate article is needed. There is so much more to be told, but most of the information remains undiscovered in archives like Papers Past and other off-line sources. Prior to the 1960's, much of the New Zealand economy depended on coal, with it being an important feed-stock for many industries, from the dairy industry to coastal shipping and railway transport. Many towns in New Zealand used coal to produce town gas for cooking and heating in both the home and industry. Contemporaneous 1951 miners strikes in support of the waterfront dispute quickly resulted in emergency rationing of coal and gas, due to supply disruptions, according to contemporary newspaper reports, and happened months before the bombing, which is contrary to at least one modern account. Mining coal is less than half the story of Coal in New Zealand. The article is intended as an overview of the subject, from its geological formation in the New Zealand geological context, to its industrial and domestic uses for cooking and heating, as well as its use as a transport fuel. These aspects of coal are far outside the scope of an article about mining. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps draftify until the stub can be fleshed out a bit more? It that sort of expansion is not on the table, then redirect to Mining in New Zealand § Coal ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Tcr25: I have added a new section about the geology of New Zealand coals, to flesh it out a bit more. This has about doubled the article's size. So I wonder if you would like to reconsider you draftify proposal. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Keep per WP:HEY. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with Cameron Dewe that it’s a notable topic, and that the scope is broader than mining. If it’s not acceptable in its current form, I suggest that it should be draftified. Schwede66 18:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep I've expanded this a bit, and think that this is a viable start class article Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep I'm satisfied with the expanded article, there's abundant sourcing for this broad topic. Meets WP:GNG. Pilaz (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Scope is much broader than Mining in New Zealand#Coal, and meets WP:GNG. Expansions made are a great start. Paora (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2023 (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.