Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hills

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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of hills

[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)

This article has had no WP:Inclusion criteria since its creation in 2005; and I cannot think of any possible way of writing any. It is a grab-bag of geographical features sometimes but not always (e.g. Calvary) called hills. How much height or prominence must a geographical feature have to be called a hill? This article's scope is broad enough to include Beacon Hill, Norfolk (the highest point in the county, a full 79 m (259 ft) above sea level ("Very flat, Norfolk.")) and the Gog Magog Hills, Cambridgeshire (74 m (243 ft)).

We have several encyclopaedic "list of hill" articles, more or less tightly defined by location and by what constitutes a hill; such as List of hills of Brandenburg, List of hills in England, and List of hills in San Francisco. We could probably do with more of those.

I can see no kind of objection to a WP:LISTOFLISTS titled List of lists of hills - but it doesn't exist, and this article is not it.

This article fails WP:LISTN, rather badly.

Off-topic, because Hill is also a surname, and for light relief only. In the 1980s, a friend got a flyer from one of those companies who peddle surname books, culled from phone directories or whatever, offering him a volume titled something like Famous People Called Marsh. He replied that he would eagerly buy it if it included details of his long-lost cousins Hackney and Romney. They never did get back to him. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't hill demonstrate satisfaction of LISTN? At any rate, this would be a navigational list to only include notable entries. We have a well-developed category structure at Category:Hills, what inclusion criteria is that using? And if the solution is to make it a list of lists, that’s development, not deletion. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Expansion, restructuring, &c. are not done by deletion. The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NEXIST, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. Please define "hill". Narky Blert (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I of course agree that AFD is NOTCLEANUP. I encourage you to go through the 20,000+ articles which appear in {{intitle:hill}}, and to add the relevant ones to the article under discussion. Successful WP:RESCUEs are to be applauded. Narky Blert (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a navigation list, listing related items and linking to their articles. Columns would allow more information to be shown, location, height, etc, but whatever. AFD is not cleanup. Dream Focus 20:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hills shows there are a lot of articles for hills, including some on other planets. So listing all the list of hills in this article, plus any hill not on one of those list, I think could work well. Dream Focus 02:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too indiscriminate for a list article. Ajf773 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hill is an inherently poorly defined term, and content is just a small but indiscriminate selection of those with hill in the name. Category:Hills has thousands of items in its subcategories, and it would be inappropriate to attempt to put all these pages in a single list that would also be indiscriminate in what may use this term (vs. e.g. mountain or butte) and have an article. The best comparison is Lists of mountains: a List of mountains would be likewise impossible! Reywas92^Talk 20:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too broad a topic; Lists of hills would be needed. The article is necessarily arbitrary in its current form. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT. A new article can be created as a index of other lists if possible. Azuredivay (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lists of hills, an article which no-one seems to object to, and tag for cleanup. We're far from TNT. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far too broad and indiscriminate topic. Criteria is not defined. It is so broad and indiscriminate it includes a range from Seven hills of Rome to Signal Hill, California. // Timothy :: talk 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is one of those places where a category works great, but an accompanying list is almost impossible to create, manage, and define. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A PetScan query found 13452 distinct pages in the Category:Hills tree, excluding subcategories. WP:TNT and make a Lists of hills. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom without objection to creation of a list of lists. no reason to save this history, though, as there's nothing here that would be used in a list of lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:34, 29 September 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.