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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility of a consensus to delete this article at this point. BD2412T 13:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at policy, this article doesn't really violate any of WP:NOT and is otherwise an acceptable topic for a list. As far as importance and notability, there's actually quite a lot written about coal reserves that demonstrate it's something sources note and view as 'important' and 'relevant'. See, for example, [1][2], [3][4]. Regards, Eddie891TalkWork 12:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^Heinberg, Richard; Fridley, David (November 2010). "The end of cheap coal". Nature. 468 (7322): 367–369. doi:10.1038/468367a. ISSN1476-4687. New forecasts suggest that coal reserves will run out faster than many believe. Energy policies relying on cheap coal have no future, say Richard Heinberg and David Fridley.
Delete(proposer) Whether countries mine their coal depends on politics and economics not the size of "reserves". Also the list is out of date, does not sort properly and does not define "reserve". The article Oil reserves says they vary with the price of oil, but I have no idea whether coal reserves vary with the price of coal. Who would find this list useful?. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1: I have made the table sortable, attempted to provide accurate background, and updated the list. Eddie891TalkWork 15:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote! by nominator struck. Please don’t use that formatting in your subsequent comments as it gives the misimpression of additional participants. postdlf (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK sorry - did not mean to imply anyone else agreed with me. My final comment is that as the source says that remaining reserves in China would last 38 years if production were to continue at the current rate and other countries far longer it would seem that only the China row might conceivably be useful to any reader and that could go in Coal in China.
Keep per Eddie891 as well as the fact that the page averages over 100 views a day, demonstrating that many people do in fact find it useful. CJK09 (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources cover this encyclopedic topic. DreamFocus 03:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable, encyclopedic, and extensively covered by reliable sources. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and a list of statistics one could reasonably expect to find in an encyclopaedia. SportingFlyerT·C 19:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list is essential for keeping important details about the subject that certainly meets GNG. --Yoonadue (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has the group or part of the group been written about in sources? Yes, so meets WP:LISTN. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2020 (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.