Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vestre Hestlægerhøy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I do not find that Tyw7's argument about "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" has been countered effectively. At the same time, it is clear that no consensus to delete exists. I encourage editors to follow up on power~enwiki's suggestion to start an RFC at an appropriate venue. Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vestre Hestlægerhøy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vestre Hestlægerhøy (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)

Also nominating:

  • Vetldalseggi
  • Visbretinden
  • Vulueggi
  • Vesltverråtinden
  • And probably all the mountains listed at Category:Mountains_of_Oppland since they all have similiar content similiar content with dubious referencing Added reason of entry and making it clear that I don't want it all deleted;edited 16:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC) Striking through later additions that were added while AfD was ongoing, opinions were already provided, and then kept changing throughout. Please make one nomination, then if you are adding text write underneath with new signatures, so a closing person and all respondents can more easily understand what is/was going on. gidonb (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Geography for named land feature. A Google search brought up nothing of the mountain and all the foreign language articles are similar stubs with few or no references. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment: WP:GEOLAND guideline 4 states

Can you find anything of the mountain beyond just stats and coordinates? This article goes against the very exception mentioned in that guideline. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Starzynka article with almost no content and no references. Category:Mountains_of_Oppland is where all these stubs are listed. -- » Shadowowl | talk 12:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The corresponding Norwegian articles all have references, and additional references probably exist. It's frustrating to see these nominations after the 100+ yesterday. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably? Can you prove that probably or is this one of those unicorns that may or may not exist?
    I had a rough look at random articles in the category and most of the foreign language articles are also no-reference stubs.
    The articles I named definitely don't have references in the foreign language, last I checked. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles generally have references to Peakbook and Statens kartverk, known in English as Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens, the Norwegian article for the mountain in the AfD title has had 3 references since 2016. Mortee (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority doesn't seem like a convincing reference. It proves WP:ITEXISTS --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not made any vote yet. Just clarifying that they (at least some) do have references in other languages Mortee (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking at the Netherlands and Norsk Nynorsky version. But still I don't think the reference listed could be used to prove notability. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus has always been that all named geographic features are notable -- and the available refs are sufficient for the purpose. It's absurd to make nominations in an area without being aware of the usual practice there. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the guideline says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." And I can't find any info beyond just statics. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had a look at the Norweigian page for the mountains that I had listed and all the references show is WP:ITEXIST. Some of them are just a link to a map of the area. For example, http://www.norgeskart.no/#!/?zoom=11&lon=119262.00&lat=6904518.00&project=seeiendom&layers=1002,1015 for Vetldalseggi --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Eastmain and DGG, and the sources identified by Mortee. Mountains like these ones generally are notable. James500 (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Reiterate DGG's comment: It's absurd to make nominations in an area without being aware of the usual practice there. Add it is further not useful to make nominations for a country where you have no knowledge of the languages, on basic topics which can be expected to be seen to be very obviously notable if you did have the language skill. Pinging User:Tyw7 because they suggest above that pinging them is necessary for them to see comments in this AFD which they opened. --Doncram (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above, I nominated this in good faith as I think it fails WP:GEOLAND particularly the part that there needs to be more source than just stats. So far, none of the mountains listed had anything beyond just raw statics like it's height, location, etc. The foreign language version also lacks sufficient reference. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Named existence alone, conflicts with WP:NOTEVERYTHING -- DexterPointy (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Named mountains are not everything that exists. Things other than named mountains do exist, and we are not trying to include all of those other things. The purpose of that policy is to prevent you from listing every blade of grass in your garden or every grain of sand on the beach. It does not exist to prevent articles on huge mountains that are important landmarks. James500 (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Then why does the guideline said: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. Emphasis added. So the mountain needs to be named and have third-party sources with stuff beyond just stats and coordinates. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Per WP:GEOLAND criterium 4: Named natural features. gidonb (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And did you see the exception? "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river."
Can you find anything of the mountain beyond just stats and coordinates? This article goes against the very exception mentioned in that guideline. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's right there in the sources. In the meantime I have fixed the coordinates and cleaned up the template clutter. Will add some more information later. To your first question and since you raise it yourself: it's difficult to miss your WP:bludgeoning on this page. In general, I view the combination of the indiscriminate nomination of 330 articles for deletion, the excessive templates, and the bludgeoning with excessive bold (that isn't in the source) as disruptive behavior. You say it bold, you say it time and time again, but that doesn't make it right. gidonb (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but https://peakbook.org/en/peakbook-element/1863/en/Vestre+Hestl%C3%A6gerh%C3%B8e.html list just numbers about the mountain.
So as this https://stadnamn.kartverket.no/fakta/920927.
And http://www.norgeskart.no/#!/?zoom=4&lon=396722.00&lat=7197864.00&project=seeiendom&layers=1002,1015 is just a map.
Also, nobody seem to be countering my point about the named feature exception. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most people here have countered your claims. After all the bludgeoning, "just numbers about the mountain" is how you frame essential information when you clearly have the losing hand. The sources provide information beyond "just numbers" (in our guideline "statistics") and it was there all along. It further proves why this nomination, a mass nomination of 330 Wikipedia articles, should never have happened. gidonb (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh really. Let's take Vestre Hestlægerhøy as an example.
https://peakbook.org/en/peakbook-element/1863/en/Vestre+Hestl%C3%A6gerh%C3%B8e.html says

Look like just stats to me.

https://stadnamn.kartverket.no/fakta/920927 says

location number 920927 Municipal Lom (0514), Oppland decisions Greyhound Norwegian Mapping Authority coordinates 61.593061 8.657556 Name type Mountain Name Type Group story Name type main group Terrain

Along with a bunch of spelling

https://peakbook.org/tour/171500/Over+paller+og+H%C3%B8er.html is also just a bunch of numbers

Start point Bom Glitterheimvegen (1,299m) Endpoint Bom Glitterheimvegen (1,299m) Characteristic Hike Duration 9h 48min Distance 38.0km Vertical meters 1,895m

http://norgeskart.no/#!/?zoom=4&lon=396722.00&lat=7197864.00&project=seeiendom&layers=1002,1015 is just a map.

And nobody has countered that specific point. If you look at the above most just say yes it meets criteria 4 since it's a named feature. And my answer is yes it's a name feature but the references are just stats.

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few statistics here. You totally undermine your own claim. The guideline provides a possible exception to the rule in the form of river islands. A non-fortified and uninhabited river island can exemplify land forms that are more dynamic or less stable over time. A river island can even be flooded part of the year. A mountain does not quite fit this model. People will write about it, as proven in the sources. Governments and private enterprises provide information other than statistics, as you quote yourself above. gidonb (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. "It's right there in the sources." : Exactly which (links please) sources goes to more than mere existence & trivia? -- DexterPointy (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I saw no trivia in any of the sources. I'm specifying the sourcing straight in the article that I have improved. This will provide more lasting value to Wikipedia users. If there is any trivia then obviously it should not go into our article. Unless only maybe under a title that warns that upcoming sentences are marginal, such as "cultural references". gidonb (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What can be read straight of a map, only qualifies as trivia: longitude, latitude, elevation above sea level, location name, region name, etc.
According to this diff, you've only added one source, which is an external reference to this photo gallery.
Per WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc."
Considering that I can provide exact same trivial facts about my pile of underwear (longitude, latitude, elevation above sea level, location name, region name, etc.; and take pictures, making a photo gallery, too), then: Are you sure about your keep?
-- DexterPointy (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does your self-selected difference define how many sources I have added to the article? Also, if you look at my answer to User:Tyw7 you would see that I claim that before adding and improving references this article was sourced to the degree that it should never have been AfDd. Furthermore, as part of a WP:BEFORE nominators and respondents need to carefully check what is in the sources and what other sources are out there. No sources needed to be added to the article to keep it per WP:NEXIST. What I've done is on and beyond. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:GEOLAND and well established precedent in WP:MAPOUTCOMES. Had a fraction of the time that so enthusiastically goes into bludgeoning this AFD been allocated to due dilligence, one would have noticed that Hestlægerhøy is a misspelling and Hestlægerhøe is correct. The nonchalant inclusion of "all the mountains listed at Category:Mountains_of_Oppland" is out of process. Sam Sailor 15:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sam Sailor:Would you like 330 separate AFD's instead?  » Shadowowl | talk 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that's a rhetorical question; but if you start 330 AfDs on these mountains I will request at ANI that you be topic-banned from deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being a stub is not an argument for deletion. Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer per WP:5P1, meeting WP:GNG is not necessary as long as the content is verifiable. If some of these really do have no additional information, a redirect to Mountains of Oppland (currently a redlink) or a more-specific area they are in would be appropriate. There's no way to do that analysis for 300+ mountains at AfD; I'd recommend an RFC on a WikiProject page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 5 August 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vestre_Hestlægerhøy&oldid=1108949370"