| Revision as of 21:51, 31 March 2012 editAlan Liefting (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers134,250 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:20, 31 March 2012 edit undoThe Rambling Man (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors286,429 edits →List of alumina refineries: wolf?Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ::The policy at ] should be a comprehensible reason enough reason for deletion in both specifics and in "spirit". I am not denying that alumina plants are significant although ''how'' significant is the question. It is interesting to note that none of the refineries have their own article. -- ] (] - ]) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | ::The policy at ] should be a comprehensible reason enough reason for deletion in both specifics and in "spirit". I am not denying that alumina plants are significant although ''how'' significant is the question. It is interesting to note that none of the refineries have their own article. -- ] (] - ]) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::Liefting, you need to actually explain your reasoning to the community in this (and all your other "edits") rather than just say "per X" where X is a guideline that covers a multitude of sins. It's not up to the community to work out what you're saying, it's up to you to you say it. And say it explicitly. The onus is on '''you''' to prove why anything should be deleted or moved etc, and in doing that you have to be '''explicit''' in the guidelines or policies or consensual discussions you're referring to in order to back up your position. If you continue to just claim "Per ]" you may end up becoming the ]. ] (]) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:20, 31 March 2012
List of alumina refineries
- List of alumina refineries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per WP:NOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No comprehensible nomination.
- Alumina refineries are significant pieces of engineering. They will (as does any construction of such scale) be fairly easy to demonstrate notability for. Each one also consumes considerable electrical power, has large quantities of raw materials shipped to it, and has a risk of environmental damage from their effluents. The locations of such plants are entirely proper topics for encyclopedic coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- The policy at WP:NOT should be a comprehensible reason enough reason for deletion in both specifics and in "spirit". I am not denying that alumina plants are significant although how significant is the question. It is interesting to note that none of the refineries have their own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Liefting, you need to actually explain your reasoning to the community in this (and all your other "edits") rather than just say "per X" where X is a guideline that covers a multitude of sins. It's not up to the community to work out what you're saying, it's up to you to you say it. And say it explicitly. The onus is on you to prove why anything should be deleted or moved etc, and in doing that you have to be explicit in the guidelines or policies or consensual discussions you're referring to in order to back up your position. If you continue to just claim "Per WP:X" you may end up becoming the boy who cried wolf. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- The policy at WP:NOT should be a comprehensible reason enough reason for deletion in both specifics and in "spirit". I am not denying that alumina plants are significant although how significant is the question. It is interesting to note that none of the refineries have their own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)