Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uranium Resources

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uranium Resources

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has now changed its name to Westwater Resources, Inc. however remains a non-notable company per WP:NCORP, besides customary stock coverage Uhooep (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : this South American company fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete: No verifiable claim of notability.~~ — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete !vote struck and reversed due to analyst reports posted by User:Cunard, which are also unrelated to mining Navajo territory— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This item might help establish notability, but some sites that report on resource stocks are paid to do so by the companies they cover. I do not know whether this is true for Mining Feeds. If you search for the company's full name, including "Inc.", you will filter out the more generic hits for "uranium resources" that don't relate to this company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in The New York Times of the company's plans to mine in traditional Navajo territory: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/health/a-doctor-s-journal-navajo-miners-battle-a-deadly-legacy-of-yellow-dust.html And a three-paragraph mention in https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/19/business/market-place-uranium-industry-hurt-by-imports.html Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reviewing the above, I've managed to find a few more sources mentioning the company, all relating to mining in Navajo territory, Navajo Group to Take Uranium Mine Challenge to Human Rights Commission, Abandoned uranium mines continue to haunt Navajos on reservation, Protect our sacred water! and Texas Sees Renewed Push for Uranium Mining. If these incidents are the only source of notability, perhaps a merge with Uranium mining and the Navajo people could be appropriate? — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

Analyst reports
1. This 5 April 2012 article^archive.is from StreetInsider notes:
2. This 14 June 2014 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:
3. This 12 August 2014 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:
4. This 11 September 2014 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:
5. This 7 November 2014 article^WebCite from Smarter Analyst notes:
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Uranium Resources to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The analyst reports from ROTH Capital Partners and Dahlman Rose (an investment bank acquired by Cowen Group in 2013) provide substantial coverage of the subject.
Cunard (talk) 09:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP among others, and the company isn't even worth $100mil. Little to no coverage of the company on news in recent years. Redditaddict69 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The company meets WP:NCORP because WP:NCORP says analyst reports can be used to establish notability. This company has received coverage in analyst reports published in 2012 and 2014. Notability is not temporary. It also has received additional coverage in reliable sources as pointed out by Eastmain and Alpha3031. That the company does not have a market value of $100 million has no bearing on the company's notability. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherent notability, "smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable".
Cunard (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2018 (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.