The result was merge to David Range. Daniel ( talk) 21:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Another place in uninhabited Antarctica which only exists on a map and is only referenced to a database/map. Not all geographical features on maps of Antarctica are notable. JMWt ( talk) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
You have a primary reference from the National Science Foundation which we can't use for notability, for fairly obvious reasons. And we have a secondary encyclopedia.
So at best you are offering two sources, of which only one is really a secondary source. Which isn't enough for inclusion.
In reality we commonly do not consider encyclopedia entries as notable in AfD debates. If we did, this would simplify hundreds of sports pages (for example) for people who only appear in old encyclopedia. JMWt ( talk) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that you know what a primary source is. It's isn't Fred G. Alberts's Names. Primary sources would be the original historical sources, the maps and records somewhere in Australia, or Norway. There is in fact no reason that we cannot evaluate Fred G. Alberts's Names for the purpose of notability. Fred G. Alberts didn't name the thing, and is quite clearly wholly independent from it. Xe didn't even come from the same countries as the people who named the thing, or go on the expeditions. Xe compiled and edited xyr compilation of named Antartica things over the decades afterwards, and xyr source is a secondary source. It tells you in its introduction that it was constructed by "collection and analysis of names data from historical and contemporary sources".
And yes, we can and regularly do include topics that have enough coverage in old encyclopaedias. Not that 1995 in any way falls under that heading. Indeed, including people that have already gone through the filter of making it into encyclopaedias is a Hell of a lot better than the way that our biographical articles are often constructed. It's a Hell of a lot easier to have an encyclopaedic biography all laid out to show the way, rather than the so-often-used living persons method of throwing huge piles of tidbit or incidental press mentions together.
and ending withAagaard Glacier 66°46'S, 64°31'W Glacier 8 mi long, which lies close E of Gould Glacier and flows in a southerly direction into Mill Inlet, on the E coast of Graham Land. Charted by the FIDS and photographed from the air by the RARE during December 1947. Named by the FIDS for Bjarne Aagaard, Norwegian authority on Antarctic whaling and exploration. Not: Glaciar Alderete.
Very interesting. Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Zykov Island 66°32'S, 93°01'E Small island lying between Fulmar Island and Buromskiy Island in the Haswell Islands. Discovered and first mapped by the AAE under Mawson, 1911-14. Remapped by the Soviet expedition of 1956, which named it for Ye. Zykov, a student navigator who lost his life in the Antarctic in 1957.
"The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article"- emphasis added). These listings are not encyclopaedia articles but instead geographical dictionary entries, and we should not create articles that simply copies of them.
"Wikipedia may serve as a gazetteer"- a gazetteer is a geographical dictionary. WP:GEONATURAL on the other hand says explicitly that our goal is to write encyclopaedia articles, which are necessarily more in-depth than a mere gazetteer entry, or even list of gazetteer entries.
"The entries in Geographic Names of the Antarctic meet that definition"- I disagree. The entries in that book are geographical dictionary entries, not encyclopaedic coverage, which is essentially a summary of what secondary sources have to say about a topic. Wikipedia is both not a dictionary and not a directory, but these listings of features would be essentially akin to dictionary/directory content.
" WP:5P1 says Wikipedia is, among other things, a gazeteer. That is, special rules apply to geographical articles. The information on geographical items may be presented in container articles, perhaps in list form, or in stand-alone articles. The main consideration in choosing the format is how much reliable information is available. In this case, there is enough to warrant the stand-alone format. Aymatth2 ( talk) 00:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which is a non-binding summary of some of the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, presently states that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers".
However, this should not be misunderstood as stating that Wikipedia IS a gazetteer. Wikipedia is very different from, for example, GNIS, or the National Land and Property Gazetteer, in that it does not simply include articles on every single place, populated or not, regardless of the notability of the location. Wikipedia policy specifically excludes that it should be a "indiscriminate collection of information", "dictionary", or a “directory”, which is what it would be if it simply included the kind of information that a classic gazetteer such GNIS does, since a gazetteer is ultimately a "geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas."
FOARP Why not open an RFC to see what the community generally thinks about having articles on verifiable geo landmarks which are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Nobody wants stubs, but I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose. I fully agree with you on the concept of "inherent notability", I hate that term too, but the original objective of Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge". We are worse off not having any mention of these features than we are having them, even as stubs. The issue that that we shouldn't really be copying from this resource, and the information is poorly presented in masses of different articles at an inconvenience to our readers. Merging the scraps of information we have to parent articles which cannot be disputed to be notable is the way to go. I would actually support a bot which nukes many of the Antarctica stubs and merges the information we have into readable prose in more notable parent articles which may be stubs or undeveloped too, but I know the community wouldn't support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose". As encyclopaedia article subjects, yes. Not as mere single-sentence entries, which are not encyclopaedia articles. FOARP ( talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly disagreement about whether the sources provided are sufficient for notability, but in addition to further analyses of these, it would be helpful if participants could specifically address the question of keeping vs merging, and of merging vs deletion. I started writing out a "no consensus" closure, but given the effort put in here I'm hopeful that further participation can resolve this. My personal opinion is that no broader RfC is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk)
21:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I pumped up David Range. It could use much more detail on climate, geology, exploration etc., but is now structured so it would be easy enough to merge in articles on the features. The more I read about this rich topic though, the more I feel it would be better to expand the feature articles, which mostly have plenty of sources for more material, and to leave the parent as a summary. Aymatth2 ( talk) 00:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
@SUPERHEROLOGIST
06:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to David Range. Daniel ( talk) 21:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Another place in uninhabited Antarctica which only exists on a map and is only referenced to a database/map. Not all geographical features on maps of Antarctica are notable. JMWt ( talk) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
You have a primary reference from the National Science Foundation which we can't use for notability, for fairly obvious reasons. And we have a secondary encyclopedia.
So at best you are offering two sources, of which only one is really a secondary source. Which isn't enough for inclusion.
In reality we commonly do not consider encyclopedia entries as notable in AfD debates. If we did, this would simplify hundreds of sports pages (for example) for people who only appear in old encyclopedia. JMWt ( talk) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that you know what a primary source is. It's isn't Fred G. Alberts's Names. Primary sources would be the original historical sources, the maps and records somewhere in Australia, or Norway. There is in fact no reason that we cannot evaluate Fred G. Alberts's Names for the purpose of notability. Fred G. Alberts didn't name the thing, and is quite clearly wholly independent from it. Xe didn't even come from the same countries as the people who named the thing, or go on the expeditions. Xe compiled and edited xyr compilation of named Antartica things over the decades afterwards, and xyr source is a secondary source. It tells you in its introduction that it was constructed by "collection and analysis of names data from historical and contemporary sources".
And yes, we can and regularly do include topics that have enough coverage in old encyclopaedias. Not that 1995 in any way falls under that heading. Indeed, including people that have already gone through the filter of making it into encyclopaedias is a Hell of a lot better than the way that our biographical articles are often constructed. It's a Hell of a lot easier to have an encyclopaedic biography all laid out to show the way, rather than the so-often-used living persons method of throwing huge piles of tidbit or incidental press mentions together.
and ending withAagaard Glacier 66°46'S, 64°31'W Glacier 8 mi long, which lies close E of Gould Glacier and flows in a southerly direction into Mill Inlet, on the E coast of Graham Land. Charted by the FIDS and photographed from the air by the RARE during December 1947. Named by the FIDS for Bjarne Aagaard, Norwegian authority on Antarctic whaling and exploration. Not: Glaciar Alderete.
Very interesting. Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Zykov Island 66°32'S, 93°01'E Small island lying between Fulmar Island and Buromskiy Island in the Haswell Islands. Discovered and first mapped by the AAE under Mawson, 1911-14. Remapped by the Soviet expedition of 1956, which named it for Ye. Zykov, a student navigator who lost his life in the Antarctic in 1957.
"The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article"- emphasis added). These listings are not encyclopaedia articles but instead geographical dictionary entries, and we should not create articles that simply copies of them.
"Wikipedia may serve as a gazetteer"- a gazetteer is a geographical dictionary. WP:GEONATURAL on the other hand says explicitly that our goal is to write encyclopaedia articles, which are necessarily more in-depth than a mere gazetteer entry, or even list of gazetteer entries.
"The entries in Geographic Names of the Antarctic meet that definition"- I disagree. The entries in that book are geographical dictionary entries, not encyclopaedic coverage, which is essentially a summary of what secondary sources have to say about a topic. Wikipedia is both not a dictionary and not a directory, but these listings of features would be essentially akin to dictionary/directory content.
" WP:5P1 says Wikipedia is, among other things, a gazeteer. That is, special rules apply to geographical articles. The information on geographical items may be presented in container articles, perhaps in list form, or in stand-alone articles. The main consideration in choosing the format is how much reliable information is available. In this case, there is enough to warrant the stand-alone format. Aymatth2 ( talk) 00:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which is a non-binding summary of some of the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, presently states that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers".
However, this should not be misunderstood as stating that Wikipedia IS a gazetteer. Wikipedia is very different from, for example, GNIS, or the National Land and Property Gazetteer, in that it does not simply include articles on every single place, populated or not, regardless of the notability of the location. Wikipedia policy specifically excludes that it should be a "indiscriminate collection of information", "dictionary", or a “directory”, which is what it would be if it simply included the kind of information that a classic gazetteer such GNIS does, since a gazetteer is ultimately a "geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas."
FOARP Why not open an RFC to see what the community generally thinks about having articles on verifiable geo landmarks which are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Nobody wants stubs, but I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose. I fully agree with you on the concept of "inherent notability", I hate that term too, but the original objective of Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge". We are worse off not having any mention of these features than we are having them, even as stubs. The issue that that we shouldn't really be copying from this resource, and the information is poorly presented in masses of different articles at an inconvenience to our readers. Merging the scraps of information we have to parent articles which cannot be disputed to be notable is the way to go. I would actually support a bot which nukes many of the Antarctica stubs and merges the information we have into readable prose in more notable parent articles which may be stubs or undeveloped too, but I know the community wouldn't support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
"I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose". As encyclopaedia article subjects, yes. Not as mere single-sentence entries, which are not encyclopaedia articles. FOARP ( talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is clearly disagreement about whether the sources provided are sufficient for notability, but in addition to further analyses of these, it would be helpful if participants could specifically address the question of keeping vs merging, and of merging vs deletion. I started writing out a "no consensus" closure, but given the effort put in here I'm hopeful that further participation can resolve this. My personal opinion is that no broader RfC is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Vanamonde (
Talk)
21:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I pumped up David Range. It could use much more detail on climate, geology, exploration etc., but is now structured so it would be easy enough to merge in articles on the features. The more I read about this rich topic though, the more I feel it would be better to expand the feature articles, which mostly have plenty of sources for more material, and to leave the parent as a summary. Aymatth2 ( talk) 00:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Doczilla
@SUPERHEROLOGIST
06:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)