- 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 Speedy delete (G7). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Highwall mining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
WP:SPAM. This article looks to me like a thinly veiled advert for the company whose website it links to three times. ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Can the term be found outside of the website being promoted? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes it can, and identical text to this article can be found in surface mining. There is something fishy going on here - the changes to surface mining were made by User:Coalminer01 and highwall mining was created by User:Coalminer02. In any event it does seem to be a legitimate mining technique but to me it looks like the article has been created for spammy purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a spinoff from Surface mining #Highwall Mining, and a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article. I agree with nominator that the links to the Terex corporation don't belong, since there are various manufacturers (CME, Takraf and Terex, Wilcox, Jeffrey, etc.) of equipment for highwall mining. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not a spin-off, but another copy of the same text, making it seem more spammy. Need refs for other mfgrs and discussions of the practice/method. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin comment: The author has explicitly asked that the article be deleted on its talk page. Should I close this AFD and speedy delete it based on that criterion? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, yup I think that's a G7. But it's still fishy given the same text in the other article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.