Talk:Polymetallic ore

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 17 September 2024 by reviewer Ldm1954 (talk · contribs).

Geology

	Geology portal Talk:Polymetallic ore is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mining

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

RfC on redirect/draftification of Polymetallic ore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article be:

Restored with tags to allow original editor and others to improve
Draftified, despite being more than 90 days old
Redirected to a page which has very little direct relevance

Ldm1954 (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some context: This article was created directly in main by Loukus999 on 13 May 2024. It was a stub, probably from a Ukranian or Azerbaijan source. Assorted minor cleanups done by GhostInTheMachine, Onel5969, Graeme Bartlett, Bearcat, LadyofShalott, Ryan shell, SporkBot, Pladica ; I (Ldm1954) added a disambiguation on July 11. On September 17th Elmidae draftified the article despite it being 123 days old (i.e. more than 90). I moved it back, pointing out on his talk page that draftification was not appropriate by WP policy. I also added standard tags, and notified the original editor with a request to improve the sources. In response Elmidae blanked the page and changed it to a redirect to Ore which is only remotely connected. When I said that I might revert it, and asked him to revert, his response was:

Nope, I will not revert. If you do, I shall a) reinstate the redirect, and b) formally warn you for placing unsourced material in mainspace.

Rather than starting an edit war I am requesting comments on whether we should follow what I would consider standard and appropriate, i.e. allow the originator to add sources (or others). I do not include AfD as an option since a quick WP:BEFORE via Google reveals quite a few sources (I have not had a chance to read them all to pick the best). Ldm1954 (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option B (revert redirect then draftify). I understand that the 90 day cut-off has been exceeded and so the move to draftspace should have been discussed first, but the revert back to mainspace should also have been after a discussion. I think that the current redirect has no value and the best option is now to move the pre-redirect version of the article to draftspace. This gives the originator, you and any others the chance to add the sources that you say you have found. If it stays unsourced and thus unfit for mainspace, then normal process will result in it being deleted after a while. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A on both substantive and procedural grounds. While WP:V is a fundamental principle, a reader-visible tag about sourcing is in my view sufficient as an interim measure. The encyclopedia would be poorer if unsourced material was immediately purged instead of being checked and sourced as usual. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option A per RadioactiveBoulevardier. I may have a bit of a pro-geology bias, but I really feel like a cleanup of the article as it was would have been more warranted. Ryan shell (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect, obviously. I am baffled by an NPP reviewer who seems to have lost sight of the fundamental goal of patrolling new pages - keep unsuitable material out of mainspace. This is a page of statements about a topic that comes with not a single applicable reference, and might as well be made up as far as we can tell; or more importantly, as far as the reader can tell. Such material is not desired in mainspace. We are not talking deletion here; no one is arguing the article should not exist (which, BTW, is what the "sources exist" tag is meant for - it is a judgement of notability, with no bearing on current article state). The obvious method to work on a desirable topic with some rump text that is still unsuitable for mainspace is draft space. The 90 days stated at WP:DRAFTNO are explicitly not a hard deadline - that cutoff was inserted as a guideline for NPP to keep the original creator connected to the article, and much older articles are frequently draftified if that seems indicated. Draftspace is a workshop that avoids the requirements of mainspace (such as at least minimal sourcing) while still being accessible to any interested editor; it's not a dustbin. Understanding that is also part of the required background of an NPP reviewer. But if draftification is rejected, the material still cannot remain in mainspace in unsourced form. The alternative is redirection.
Two principles apply to unsourced text: 1) any editor may remove unsourced material; and 2) The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material (that is the boldened takeaway of WP:UNSOURCED). You want this material in mainspace? You source it. Restoring this stuff with a few hopeful tags is a disservice to the encyclopedia and the reader, and frankly that choice is not amenable to a local RfC outcome. If this ends up as an unsourced blob in mainspace again, I shall remove it again (and so may, and should, anyone else), and then we can kick it upstairs to a larger forum of people with a better understanding of priorities. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update All right. Finding myself with half an hour to spare, I have created a sourced stub at Draft:Polymetallic ore. This may serve as a placeholder that is suitable for mainspace and offers room for expansion, without being both an embarassment to the encyclopedia and useless as a accountable resource. I'd like to underline that producing this kind of thing would have been the responsibility of those who insist on keeping the article in mainspace, not of me.

Please be aware that the buck stops there with respect to unsourced text. While there is some fuzziness in deciding where to put the article itself due to multiple options, that does not apply to individual unsourced passages within an article. You want text in there, you source it. None of the text that I omitted from the stub because I could not locate a suitable source at this point can go back in unless you find a reference. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option A (since I did not state which I preferred when I created the RfC, being NPOV.) We should go back to the original and then improve it. This has the major advantage of preserving both the prior history and editing credits of many contributors, as well as the record of the discussion. I would have no problem with merging some of the edits that Elmidae has made in his draft, while also preserving the existing redlinks to the Ukranian wiki. The two flakey links at the bottom of the original page are easy to repair. However, of course nothing should happen until this RfC is concluded. Ldm1954 (talk)

Repair away, but text that remains unsourced upon return to mainspace will be removed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option A per RadioactiveBoulevardier. Preserve edit history. Strongly oppose Draft deletion. Benjamin (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the concensus seems to be option A, which Elmidae appears to have accepted. There has not been any new comments for a while, so unless I hear differently I will ask for this to be closed. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acknowledgement

Some material has been copied from Draft:Polymetallic_ore created by Elmide and merged with both the original version by Lukus99 as well as new material and sources. As of October 8 2024 I have requested "expert" input from WP:Geology and WP:Mining, hopefully it will come. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]