Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Cooper

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Cooper[edit]

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

A small hill in a park, with no official status as a placename and with no particular social or historical signficance Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how come I can find this "unofficial" placename used on the Bundoora official WWW site and in geological reports from the Royal Society of Victoria from the early 20th century (Jutson & Coulson 1937, pp. 47, 51, 52, 55) ? Uncle G (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jutson, J.T.; Coulson, Alan (1937). "On the Age and Physiographic Relations of the Older Basalts of Greensborough and Kangaroo Ground, and certain Basalts at Bundoora and Ivanhoe". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria. 26 (1): 45–56.
- ...and in real estate agents' windows. Official placenames are here. The Mount Cooper in Victoria is in Gippsland. Doubtless, refs could also be found for Apollo Parkways, Grace Park, Partingtons Flat, Green Hills etc in the neighbouring suburb of Greensborough but articles would not be justified. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep Uncle G has demonstrated the topic's notability. Officialdom is irrelevant because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True; but there are 350,000 official places listed and probably a million places in Australia which would show up on a Google search, Apollo Parkways with many hits as an example. We dont need articles on all of them and if they are not official names we should have a good reason to retain an article; a section on Bundoora Park is quite justified in the Bundoora article mentioning Mount Cooper. It is one of the best places to see large kangaroos in Melbourne, and it is possible to climb Mount Cooper without noticing a serious slope!(Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —(Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Is this article causing any sort of harm to Wikipedia? It does not seem likely to become a WP:BLP problem, and it's not taking that much disk space. Is the mount spamming us or trying to promote itself? Is it using peacock terms to exaggerate its height? Has it become a coatrack for an indiosyncratic point of view? Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Jehochman. Uncle G has demonstrated notability. Its marginal, but this article, as Jehochman notes, lacks any complicating factors that may make me lean towards delete. There's no coatracking, its not a spam magnet, and its not got any BLP problems. Thus the weak keep. --Jayron32 13:41, 15 December 2010 (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.