- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 18:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Comer Range ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One-sentence article that only consists of a lead, and a bad one at that. Drsorio ( talk) 09:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 2. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 09:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Rather more than one sentence. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. All mountain ranges are notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Very weak keep - Yes, it is substantially longer than one sentence and being a stub is not grounds for deletion. That said, I am not award of any consensus that all mountain ranges are notable. WP:GEOLAND says named features are "often" notable (which is true enough) but calls for sourced info. My search for "Comer range" finds this article and the blurb from USGS it is copied from. The articles for the peaks mentioned in the article do not mention the name (the article is a pure orphan). It seems the name is not widely used, but exists. In effect, it's a detailed disamb page for those two peaks, with the story woven in. Arguably, this could be merged and redirected to Gary Comer, but we'd likely lose the story. As much as I hate to do so, I'm leaning toward an IAR keep. - SummerPhD v2.0 15:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 16:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - as SummerPhD states,
WP:NGEO sets a very low bar for geography articles, which this one seems to pass with a fairly meaningful history as far as Antarctic mountain ranges go. I would be okay with merging
Jabet Peak and
Noble Peak with this article if others wanted, but since this page is (in my mind) the logical target of such a merge, this page should definitely be kept either way.
MarginalCost (
talk)
16:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Edit: I've also now de-orphaned the article. MarginalCost ( talk) 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - as others before me have mentioned, article length does not describe notability, and in this case, the subject passes WP:NGEO. -- HunterM267 talk 16:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, although this looks likely to be a "keep" (unless a whole lot of deleters pile on:)), i would be happier with a redirect to Gary Comer that could have a "Legacy" section with a sentence about this range being named after him, if sentences that don't discuss the range but rather Comer the person are removed then what is left is an article of a few short sentences with (yes i know article length does not reflect notability but really....), if a gsearch is anything to go by, no real expectation of expansion. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:NGEO \\\Septrillion:- ~~~~ 10 Eleventeen 08:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep All mountain ranges (that are properly named / covered in sources) should be inherently notable, and the coverage of its naming should be enough for general notability. — innotata 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 18:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Comer Range ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One-sentence article that only consists of a lead, and a bad one at that. Drsorio ( talk) 09:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 2. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 09:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Rather more than one sentence. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. All mountain ranges are notable. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Very weak keep - Yes, it is substantially longer than one sentence and being a stub is not grounds for deletion. That said, I am not award of any consensus that all mountain ranges are notable. WP:GEOLAND says named features are "often" notable (which is true enough) but calls for sourced info. My search for "Comer range" finds this article and the blurb from USGS it is copied from. The articles for the peaks mentioned in the article do not mention the name (the article is a pure orphan). It seems the name is not widely used, but exists. In effect, it's a detailed disamb page for those two peaks, with the story woven in. Arguably, this could be merged and redirected to Gary Comer, but we'd likely lose the story. As much as I hate to do so, I'm leaning toward an IAR keep. - SummerPhD v2.0 15:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 16:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - as SummerPhD states,
WP:NGEO sets a very low bar for geography articles, which this one seems to pass with a fairly meaningful history as far as Antarctic mountain ranges go. I would be okay with merging
Jabet Peak and
Noble Peak with this article if others wanted, but since this page is (in my mind) the logical target of such a merge, this page should definitely be kept either way.
MarginalCost (
talk)
16:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Edit: I've also now de-orphaned the article. MarginalCost ( talk) 16:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - as others before me have mentioned, article length does not describe notability, and in this case, the subject passes WP:NGEO. -- HunterM267 talk 16:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, although this looks likely to be a "keep" (unless a whole lot of deleters pile on:)), i would be happier with a redirect to Gary Comer that could have a "Legacy" section with a sentence about this range being named after him, if sentences that don't discuss the range but rather Comer the person are removed then what is left is an article of a few short sentences with (yes i know article length does not reflect notability but really....), if a gsearch is anything to go by, no real expectation of expansion. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:NGEO \\\Septrillion:- ~~~~ 10 Eleventeen 08:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep All mountain ranges (that are properly named / covered in sources) should be inherently notable, and the coverage of its naming should be enough for general notability. — innotata 15:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.