Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Gold Mines Ltd

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. The nomination was unsigned (but that was probably an oversight). One person explicitly voted delete, one explicit keep and one conditional. Looking at the article, I am going to call this a "no concensus" defaulting to keep.

Next, as an ordinary editor, I am going to convert this article to a redirect to the parent. It is very difficult to produce non-stub articles on a subsidiary but a good article should eventually be possible on the parent company. Rossami (talk) 00:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

River Gold Mines Ltd

This is a vague stub and the subject is not notable.

Delete Nowhere near enough information to start expanding the article. Chris talk back 04:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. 2005 assets of $57 million makes it a non-trivial company, at least to me. :) — RJH 16:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, contextify, and link; otherwise delete : this is not a 'stub', it's a 'st' --Simon Cursitor 07:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.