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.
Mass-produced import from GNIS; if only the name and elevation is known it doesn't pass
WP:GEOLAND4, and I cannot find further details. 1,300 m is not a significant prominence in high-elevation Antarctica. Search results are mirrors or WP and GNIS. Mere existence (and a resume of the namesake) is not notability.
Reywas92Talk18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keepor redirect to
Royal Society Range#Features, an article section which already includes Stoner Peak, per the
long term significance of the feature; predating human existence itself. AndWP:NGEO#Named natural features which says that a feature which cannot be developed into a stand alone article using known sources should instead be included in and redirected to a more general article on local geography, not obliterated by deletion. Many have argued that "article development" means development beyond stub class but I do not ascribe to this position nor am I aware of any policy or guideline supporting the notion. I believe a well written, well sourced topic is worthy of "stand alone" inclusion even if it could never be developed beyond stub class with the only valid metric being whether or not the article meets the general notability guidelines which I feel that Stoner Peak does. That is why my first choice is to keep the article as is (subject to improvement). Since wp:gng has a subjective threshold with no exact bounds for what "significant coverage" is or how many independent reliable sources are needed to satisfy the plurality specified, I'll accept redirecting as the appropriate deletion alternative.--
John Cline (
talk) 04:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC) I have refactored my original !vote by striking vacated text and inserting underlined text for clarification as of the following timestamp and signature:--
John Cline (
talk)
10:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
And if there were over a million Wikipedia articles on mountains, all sourced, as this one is, then we'd have a massive encyclopedic mountain range afloat in the net. There aren't a million mountain articles on Wikipedia, but there are quite a few that someone took the time to write, and this is one of those. Key word in the above: sourced.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
It seems a good source with governmental backing. And if that's not a photograph what is it, a drawing? If it's a drawing just replace the word "Photograph" in the External link with "Drawing".
Randy Kryn (
talk)
18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for recognizing the Matterhorn placeholder, good eye. There seem to be dozens of deletions per day, there are Wikipedia editors who spend most of their time here trying to delete things and having a fine time doing so. Lots of delete people populate the discussions and god bless the few editors who try to keep a daily check and balance on this practice (even as some of the more dedicated ones have been banned/censored from AfD discussions). This Antarctic peak has a good governmental source, and in a fair world of good sources that should be enough to keep it around.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
The GNIS has over 14,000 place names from Antarctica, almost 6,000 of which are class "Summit". Of course many are notable, but that's a fallacy to suggest that because it's published by the USGS they're automatically notable. They need more depth and sources than a name database entry for stand-alone articles.
Reywas92Talk01:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Reywas92, I agree with you that mere existence is not a measure of notability and struck my initial assertion of long term significance which was inadequat as a rationale to "keep". I have inserted a more fitting rationale but ultimately will accept converting the article to a redirect as suggested by
FOARP. I feel it would be collegial of you to refine your own delete recommendation to include the deletion alternative of redirecting the page which would actually mean a consensus was achieved. And perhaps
Randy Kryn will consider redirecting as well. Merry Christmas and be well.--
John Cline (
talk)
10:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect/merge to
Royal Society Range - there’s just nothing to write about this mountain, being as it is just a small part of a mountain range on an uninhabited continent. The article itself is simply directly copied from GNIS.
FOARP (
talk)
07:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping, which I'd forgotten about. Yes, redirecting to Royal Society Range seems fine if the governmental source isn't adequate to keep the page.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
04:05, 26 December 2021 (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.
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.
Mass-produced import from GNIS; if only the name and elevation is known it doesn't pass
WP:GEOLAND4, and I cannot find further details. 1,300 m is not a significant prominence in high-elevation Antarctica. Search results are mirrors or WP and GNIS. Mere existence (and a resume of the namesake) is not notability.
Reywas92Talk18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keepor redirect to
Royal Society Range#Features, an article section which already includes Stoner Peak, per the
long term significance of the feature; predating human existence itself. AndWP:NGEO#Named natural features which says that a feature which cannot be developed into a stand alone article using known sources should instead be included in and redirected to a more general article on local geography, not obliterated by deletion. Many have argued that "article development" means development beyond stub class but I do not ascribe to this position nor am I aware of any policy or guideline supporting the notion. I believe a well written, well sourced topic is worthy of "stand alone" inclusion even if it could never be developed beyond stub class with the only valid metric being whether or not the article meets the general notability guidelines which I feel that Stoner Peak does. That is why my first choice is to keep the article as is (subject to improvement). Since wp:gng has a subjective threshold with no exact bounds for what "significant coverage" is or how many independent reliable sources are needed to satisfy the plurality specified, I'll accept redirecting as the appropriate deletion alternative.--
John Cline (
talk) 04:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC) I have refactored my original !vote by striking vacated text and inserting underlined text for clarification as of the following timestamp and signature:--
John Cline (
talk)
10:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
And if there were over a million Wikipedia articles on mountains, all sourced, as this one is, then we'd have a massive encyclopedic mountain range afloat in the net. There aren't a million mountain articles on Wikipedia, but there are quite a few that someone took the time to write, and this is one of those. Key word in the above: sourced.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
It seems a good source with governmental backing. And if that's not a photograph what is it, a drawing? If it's a drawing just replace the word "Photograph" in the External link with "Drawing".
Randy Kryn (
talk)
18:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for recognizing the Matterhorn placeholder, good eye. There seem to be dozens of deletions per day, there are Wikipedia editors who spend most of their time here trying to delete things and having a fine time doing so. Lots of delete people populate the discussions and god bless the few editors who try to keep a daily check and balance on this practice (even as some of the more dedicated ones have been banned/censored from AfD discussions). This Antarctic peak has a good governmental source, and in a fair world of good sources that should be enough to keep it around.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
The GNIS has over 14,000 place names from Antarctica, almost 6,000 of which are class "Summit". Of course many are notable, but that's a fallacy to suggest that because it's published by the USGS they're automatically notable. They need more depth and sources than a name database entry for stand-alone articles.
Reywas92Talk01:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Reywas92, I agree with you that mere existence is not a measure of notability and struck my initial assertion of long term significance which was inadequat as a rationale to "keep". I have inserted a more fitting rationale but ultimately will accept converting the article to a redirect as suggested by
FOARP. I feel it would be collegial of you to refine your own delete recommendation to include the deletion alternative of redirecting the page which would actually mean a consensus was achieved. And perhaps
Randy Kryn will consider redirecting as well. Merry Christmas and be well.--
John Cline (
talk)
10:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect/merge to
Royal Society Range - there’s just nothing to write about this mountain, being as it is just a small part of a mountain range on an uninhabited continent. The article itself is simply directly copied from GNIS.
FOARP (
talk)
07:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping, which I'd forgotten about. Yes, redirecting to Royal Society Range seems fine if the governmental source isn't adequate to keep the page.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
04:05, 26 December 2021 (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.