Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertson Nunatak

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 Procedural close. Nominator changed all of the nominated articles to redirects before this AFD discussion was closed.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson Nunatak[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)

Not notable: article consists entirely of the USGS Geographic Names Information System and no other information is available (WP Library results only show descriptions of maps showing the nunatuk) User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. It exists, it is not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the few lines of text, it could be copied into the article about the glacier. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm unfamiliar with wiki-etiquette. I've merged the information in this article into Lambert Glacier; can I create a redirect and withdraw this deletion nomination or should I leave the article until the discussion plays out? User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 16:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all also consist of data from the same source and have no other apparent sources other than maps. Sorry for taking so long to do so. These are all part of the same (autogenerated?) set of articles regurgitating the USGS data. I'd nominate more but I'm doing all of this by hand. I would prefer to nominate most (but not all) of the pages listed under Prince Charles Mountains: User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 15:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m usually a big fan of bundled AfDs but I’m not particularly of this one. I know that the slow and laborious work of merging these Antarctica stubs into more general articles is underway and I think it would be a shame for us to lose all this detail by being in too much of a hurry. My preference in every case is to merge and redirect where possible to articles about more notable nearby features. I recognise that in some cases this won’t be possible and we’ll lose the stubs as a result, but I think that should be a last resort. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, after the conversations yesterday I'm in agreement. I've started that work on the parts of the list of features of the Prince Charles Mountains that aren't on this list but I feel weird about turning all of these into redirects after nominating them. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw After seeing the discussion, I'm withdrawing this nomination and will begin the process of merging and redirecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwilliamsl (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 July 2022 (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.