Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otsego County high point

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. Clear consensus this is non-notable, and it seems like an unlikely search term. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otsego County high point[edit]

[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)

An unnamed place without reliable sources or even exact measurements? No notability. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New York. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deprodded by Doncram (talk · contribs) without explanation or improvement. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, part of a WP:HOUNDing spree which also included e.g. the deprodding of the article now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Life: Meaning, Purpose & Death. Fram (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I object to User:Fram's tone and statements which are personally-directed and seem, to me, abusive or on the edge of that. Personal animus should not be part of AFD process. These remarks by Fram are shortly after I did object to their nominations in a series of AFDs they opened, and I opposed in those AFDs, and I believe all of them have been closed "Keep". The tone of the remarks here and elsewhere, plus these facts, seem to me to suggest their tone here is in retaliation, and higher-level action in response to Fram could be appropriate. I won't right now open some higher level proceeding.

However, I do think it is fair to register here that I consider Fram's remarks to be unnecessarily mean in tone, and consistent with being retaliatory, and likely having intent to rouse up others with anger or derisive tone also. Seeing the following series of seven "Delete" votes, I think Fram may have succeeded in setting a prevailing tone here that got everyone so far to act in a piling on way instead of considering policy and guidelines which to me are obvious. Turning back to content of this AFD, please see my !vote for "Redirect" below. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to raise this at Ani. Just make sure you have the facts straight there, unlike here. Fram (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laughable article, there's thousands of pretty flat counties whose locations of highest elevations are entirely unremarkable and obviously unnamed and undeserving of standalone articles. Absolutely no basis for the prod removal. Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's on a list of 62 highest places but has no official name? Non-notable. I don't see any sourcing for this un-named place either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't even have a name, let alone any good sources. WP:GEOLAND says that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", but it's not named and there is no information beyond statistics and coordinates. At best this is one sentence in Otsego County, New York#Geography. Hut 8.5 18:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that this is comically and uncontroversially bad and not even worthy of an AfD. Are we going to start making articles on the largest unnamed rocks in various US counties next? Dronebogus (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above comments; there is no notability or good sources. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't even come close to meeting our notability guidelines. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Otsego county's row in List of New York county high points. This simply should not be at AFD. An obvious good alternative to deletion is to merge or redirect this to the list-article which includes it, List of New York county high points.

How obvious is the existence of that list-article? I found it easily at the time when I removed the PROD, likely by my checking "what links here". Just now, though, I could not find it in "what links here", and figured out that the list article was changed by this edit delinking it at 15:25, 13 February 2023‎, by User:Reywas92 at the time of their "Delete" vote above, the second of seven. So the existence of the list-article was obvious to at least them, and perhaps it was obvious for the first delete voter, but it might not have been as obvious for later voters to find. I just now restored the link from the list-article. Reywas92, IMHO your removing that during this AFD was not helpful, one reason being that it sort of seems like trying to undermine the page as if to "win" the AFD. To everyone else, please reconsider whatever you might have thought about my removal of the PROD when you did not have this information. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current Otsego article links to the NY list, so yes the existence of that was obvious, no need for "what links here". If one were to search "Otsego County high point", the main list comes up right away, and I do not think a redirect for a descriptor of an unnamed place is actually necessary. My delinking of that list undermines nothing, and I've re-delinked the pointless red links that are unnamed hills that should not be articles. Reywas92^Talk 04:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. The place is unnamed, and it's more likely to be found than searched for, anyway, so there's no reason why this of all titles should be redirected to the list. Avilich (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2023 (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.