Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoner Peak

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 redirect to Royal Society Range. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner Peak

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per name. We've all been there. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? This is not a policy- or guideline-based argument to keep. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reywas92, I think it's a weed joke lol. Curbon7 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I know, but it's just that. Reywas92^Talk 04:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or 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. And~~ WP: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]
This is wrong. Mere existance is not significance. There are over a million named mountains, and it is not our practice to have articles without further details. Expansion of List of mountains in Antarctica is welcome. Reywas92^Talk 16:35, 19 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's literally copy and pasted from https://web.archive.org/web/2020/https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=gnispq:5:::NO::P5_ANTAR_ID:14630, so no, no one "took the time to write" this article, nor is that a basis to keep. "Sourced" is not and never has been a basis to keep either when that one source is a database entry with little context. The link you added says "Photograph at peakery.com" but [1] doesn't have any photograph... Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 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]
- Oh sheesh, that's an illustration of the Matterhorn as a placeholder, it's not a drawing of Stoner Peak............. Presence in the WP:GNIS is not automatic notability, it's just a database of place names. Many other mountains and places in the GNIS like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round Mountain (Washington County, Missouri) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey Hill (Herkimer County, New York) have been deleted because an entry in this with nothing else doesn't mean it's notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 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. Reywas92^Talk 01:42, 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]
Delete or redirect. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE. Avilich (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:54, 26 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]
Redirect to Royal Society Range. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Royal Society Range with no prejudice against re-creating in the future if a substantial article can be written. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 30 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.