Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Edward Glacier

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 no consensus. While normally Elmidae's comment could be discarded as 'other stuff exists', in this case they are spot on - a centralised discussion around the notability of these glaciers should be had, which has the ability to generate a consensus to redirect if that is indeed the community's wider viewpoint. Daniel (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Edward Glacier[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)

Fails WP:GEOLAND Hyperwave11 (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The information on where it drains, the derivation of its name, etc is "information beyond statistics and coordinates" (quoting from WP:GEOLAND). Solidly sourced little article, represented in several other wikipedias, worth keeping. PamD 09:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of glaciers in the Antarctic: I–Z. Knowing the Prince Edward Glacier is named after Prince Edward and its location is not substantive information beyond statistics and location, or else there is literally no named feature that would not meet GEOLAND. The eponym can be merged there. Reywas92^Talk 00:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas, as it seems that about all we can reliably source this thing is where it is, that it drains a specific plateau, and that it's named after Prince Edward. I wouldn't consider that to be substantive coverage per Reywas. Hog Farm _Talk 06:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD JarrahTree 15:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the simple reason that we have many dozens of glacier stubs of exactly this extent, and I see no cause to treat this one differently than the rest. Just take a few random samples from the above-linked List of glaciers in the Antarctic: I–Z and see what you get (note how the list is entirely bluelinked?). If there is to be a general consensus that glacier stubs of this size are unacceptable, then let's have a centralized discussion and sort out all of them, rather than introducing inconsistent treatment in bits and bobs. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:52, 11 July 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.