Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norgay Montes

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. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Norgay Montes

Norgay Montes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NGEO.. WP:NASTRO Existence does not confer notability. I have no objections to a Geography of Pluto article but having an article for each recently discovered geographic feature is absurd unless they have some other notability. Savonneux cites. (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Geographic features of astronomical objects is not covered in WP:GEO, my bad. My reasoning still stands per "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works."--Savonneux (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete.Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Norgay Montes is the tallest mountain range on Pluto, essentially it is the Himalayas of the dwarf planet. It and Hillary Montes were also the first two mountain ranges to be named, and for these reasons are more notable than other mountains. We have articles on practically every feature on Mars, etc., why should this be different? DN-boards1 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, but I'm not sure why we have many of those pages on physiofeatures on Mars either. Some, for there is citable source material, yes, but for many others, no, we don't need them all. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes - Norgay Montes is a significant geographical feature on the dwarf planet Pluto and is notable per WP:GEOLAND => Named natural features are often notable ... - also - the article is well-sourced - also - *entirely* agree with the comments presented above by DN-boards1 - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup => Besides many refs ("NASA", "National Geographic Society" and others) already in the article, more relevant references (see below) (as well as earlier newly added refs) were added to the "Hillary Montes" and "Norgay Montes" articles - including refs from "The Christian Science Monitor", "PBS NewsHour" & "Space.com", July 2015 - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

References

• Keep - per Drbrogdan. Jusdafax 04:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - Tallest mountain on a dwarf planet confers notability, not just "it exists" and the article is well sourced. --Oakshade (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, unlike Earth-based geographic features, the existence of an astronomical object, or even the fact that it has been named does not guarantee notability. Sources aren't the same as notability, "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" is the criteria for astronomical objects.WP:NASTRO--Savonneux (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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.