Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawhai Hill

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. No agreement between "Keep" and "Merge", no agreement on whether the information on these natural features are sufficient to pass WP:GEOLAND, in light of the controversy over their original names, and no real agreement on a merge target if we were to do that. This close doesn't preclude further discussions occurring on talk pages regarding any potential merge, nor should it be taken to be giving any particular direction to the discussion at DYK (as DYK is DYK's business). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhai Hill[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all at issue in the same multi-hook DYK nomination and all have similar subject matter that I question in terms of its encyclopedic nature:

This article has become controversial at WP:DYK, where it is currently part of a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Tawhai Hill, Kānuka Hills, Pūkio Stream. There has been extensive discussion about the propriety of the hook there and at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Using_the_.22N.22_word_multiple_times_in_a_hook. Those discussions surround the propriety of the words used in the nominated DYK hook. Eventually, I called into question the notability of the three related articles in the hook. To me, the articles appear to be "just Hills that all were renamed after a bit of controversy". I find little encyclopedic content in any of the three articles and thus question the notability. When I mentioned this an editor opened up a merge discussion at Talk:Canterbury,_New_Zealand#Proposed_merge, but I feel that is a bit of a back-door deletion. I think the articles should be given a formal WP:AFD review. Comments welcome. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography. These are not independently notable landforms; rather, their sole claim to notability comes from the decision of the Canterbury, New Zealand authorities to collectively rename them. Had any one of them been renamed individually, that would likely not even have been taken note of. bd2412 T 01:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three and merge into Canterbury, New Zealand. There is almost no content apart from the name dispute, which was addressed by the government as one issue; see the New Zealand Geographic Board Report. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' into Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography. As reviewer of the DYK, I was skeptical of having three articles about places that seem to be notable only because they were once offensively named and no longer are. The information would be useful as a historical anecdote and useful for geographers to understand old maps and references, but probably not ready for stand-alone articles. - Owlsmcgee (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GEOLAND, it states that named geographical features are notable and are able to have their own pages. Also under WP:GNG, it has sufficient sources for each to confirm notability. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:GEOLAND says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." What we have is a name and no information beyond statistics and coordinates. I don't think a controversy about either the name, the statistics or coordinates counts as information beyond the basic info. You need some additional encyclopedic information.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are plenty of tiny hills and creeks in the USA with articles, perhaps these are a bit short currently but I don't see why features in NZ should be treated different. There's definitely enough info beyond name/coordinates to justify keep Shanno n 14:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Canterbury, NZ, with no prejudice against recreating them if more content other than "it used to have a strange name" is found related to them directly. SnowFire (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three to New Zealand Geographic Board. I've had a look which district they are in, but as they fall across two different districts (Hurunui District for Tawhai Hill, and the other two are in Selwyn District), it is indeed the Canterbury Region that is common to those three. That said, in the same process of renaming geographic features, Darkies Creek, Darkies Terrace Track and Darkies Terrace were also renamed, and they are located on the West Coast. I can't see it being sensible that the Canterbury and West Coast articles separately discuss the renaming of these geographic features. I therefore suggest that the New Zealand Geographic Board, which managed the renaming process, is the better home for the merged articles, as it can also mention the West Coast Darkies. With regards to WP:BEFORE, I did check whether the three articles under discussion have an entry in Alexander Wyclif Reed's Place Names of New Zealand (I have the 2010 revision on my bookshelf), but they aren't in there. This would have supported GNG. Darkies Creek and Darkies Terrace are listed, but they aren't up for discussion here. Schwede 66 18:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to that as a merge target. The topic could also be mentioned in the article on the region, with reference to the board there. bd2412 T 02:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, BD2412. Schwede 66 02:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the word has a section on place names. We could add them there instead. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 04:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The LINZ reference in each of the articles establishes notability and the articles meet WP:GEOLAND. The fact that the locations have been renamed because the original names were considered offensive means that the articles can now be more substantial than the stubs they would otherwise have been. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I disagree that these articles meet the GNG per TonyTheTiger and Schwede66. But even if it does meet the GNG, that does not guarantee inclusion as a stand-alone article, and I think the benefits of a merge outweigh the benefits of multiple stubs. The GNG creates a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should have a stand-alone article; from the GNG: "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". These both claim notability due to a single event (a renaming) by decision of a singular group, since the articles provide nothing more than geographic data and two separate discussions of the same renaming, it seems like they are best discussed together in an article that provides the context for the renaming rather than having multiple stubs on geographic locations ostensibly notable only for having their name changed. From WP:N: "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page...Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Whether that page they be merged to is New Zealand Geographic Board or Canterbury, New Zealand#Geography, I'm ambivalent, but lean more towards NZ Geographic Board per Schwede66. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, geographical landmarks are significant unless there is no further information about them than statistics & geographical coordinates exist. So far, no one has made a reasonable effort to determine this. I don't expect someone to attempt to prove a negative, but there are standard references (these include: geological surveys, ecological surveys & standard references of history -- either national or local) that provide a base line one can make a judgment against. (I'll admit the discussion about their renaming doesn't quite meet this standard, & merging would be the best solution.) In conclusion, until some attempt in this direction is made, these articles should be kept. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the articles should be moved to draft space until they are improved by the addition of such material. Also, if you think merging would be the best solution, why not favor a merge over a straight keep? bd2412 T 19:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Because I'd prefer to see someone in favor of this article's deletion/move do the needed work. So far it appears to me that much of the sentiment in favor of delete/move is motivation out of distaste for a hateful word, rather than actual notability.
    As I thought about this AfC after posting my comment above, I realized that any repurposing of the content will require some careful thought. These three landmarks are evidence of the use of racist language, in particular a term I thought unique to us benighted Americans; so I find it interesting that it was in common use in New Zealand. And so far probably the only notable information in these articles. Moving the content to the article about the NZ Geo Board or about the Districts these landmarks are in would obscure that information, & lead a user of Wikipedia to erroneously conclude use said word was confined to the US. IMHO, needing to duplicate this information over two or more articles would indicate that an independent article is called for. Or maybe an article about these kind of landmarks in NZ. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - So far it appears to me that much of the sentiment in favor of delete/move is motivation out of distaste for a hateful word, rather than actual notability. That's a completely unfair characterization of the arguments. Firstly, your impression and argument show you didn't closely read the merge rationales. You said: there are standard references (these include: geological surveys, ecological surveys & standard references of history -- either national or local) that provide a base line one can make a judgment against. and just a few comments above Schwede66 (linking to WP:BEFORE) noted in their rationale that none of these places have an entry in the 2010 edition of Place Names of New Zealand. You say no one checked standard sources for whether there may be more information available but ignore a tertiary source on place names not even listing the names of these ones. If an academic book on the names of geographic features doesn't even consider them worth inclusion, arguments for suitability in an encyclopedia are suspect. Secondly, by your logic much of the sentiment in favor of keep is motivation out of an enjoyment of a hateful word. A characterization that, like yours of merge rationales, is completely unfounded especially considering not only my merge vote but numerous others have made arguments based on policy and guidelines. I quoted the GNG and N, TonyTheTiger quoted WP:GEOLAND, Schwede66 mentioned the lack of an inclusion in a tertiary source as undermining a GNG rationale. No one has said "delete because these are naughty words", the arguments are "being a naught word doesn't make something deserving of a separate article." WP:NOTCENSORED isn't a suicide pact, it doesn't mean we have to have an article for everything that's a naughty word just because it's a naughty word. More importantly, just because something passes the GNG does not mean it must be included, and having a number of articles on geographic locations only known for being renamed from a *snicker* naughty word *te-he* is not useful but merging them to a page with greater context would allow, to quote WP:N again, "the relationships between them [to] be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page"; a point you yourself recognize: These three landmarks are evidence of the use of racist language...IMHO, needing to duplicate this information over two or more articles would indicate that an independent article is called for. Or maybe an article about these kind of landmarks in NZ.. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: these geographical features are not independently notable per Schwede66 and Wugapodes above; I do not see that they have enough other notable information to meet WP:GEOLAND despite its invocation above; their failure to appear in Place Names of New Zealand is telling. Much of the text in the three articles is repetitive among them, and readers would be better served by having it all in one place. The closer can best determine which of the New Zealand articles already suggested will be the best target. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pūkio Stream: per WP:GEOLAND, there is enough relevant information in this scientific paper relating to the Nigger Stream/River and its geology etc (I have added a bit to the article)...Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2017 (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.