Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Haberl hut

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Haberl hut[edit]

Not evidently very notable; appears more like a page from a travel brochure than anything remotely encyclopedic. Djcartwright 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The hut was just built this summer, so its notability will come. As it's the newest of the 25 or so alpine huts in Canada, I'm adding to Category:Mountain huts in Canada. I've asked for discussion on the WikiProject Mountains talk page, and I'd encourage you to join the project and have your say. --ghoti 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... Now if only it was built on Hoy island... Irongargoyle 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Article makes no claim to notability. -- Chabuk 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you consider an appropriate "claim" to notability? The hut certainly has significance to the mountaineering community, and the circumstances surrounding Jim Haberl's death and the hut are documented on the article page (I've added some more). What are your criteria? Would you suggest that the rest of the alpine huts in the Category:Mountain huts in Canada category should be deleted?  ◉ ghoti 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding notability, I should point out that Google has over 700 references -- quite a bit more than many other topics that are documented at wikipedia without argument. This meets Uncle G's notability criteria. And of course, the content of the article is verifiable. Some rationales would be appreciated here.  ◉ ghoti 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into Mountain huts in Canada or there may be enough information to be split into Mountain huts in Alberta and Mountain huts in British Columbia (I'm referring to all the other Canadian mountain hut articles in addition to this one). These buildings provide shelter for thousands of hikers and mountaineers each year. Some of the "travel-speak" can probably be trimmed if the articles are merged. These are not sub-stubs and contain verifiable content. How can these be less notable than articles on radio towers and transmitters or for petes sake all the highly questionable (IMHO) primary school articles. If merged, all the hut names can have redirects to the new article(s). RedWolf 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as RedWolf suggests. It's already notable, and as ghoti notes, it will have more published references as books are updated. Since it is short, it would make sense to merge it, but keeping as is seems fine to me as well. -- Spireguy 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, so that I don't keep spending time creating pages that get nominated for deletion 30 seconds after creation, can you point me to the page the contains the definition of "notability" you're using? I was going by Uncle G's criteria, which states that notability is objective and measurable, but that's obviously not being being used here, or we wouldn't have to vote. Thanks.  ◉ ghoti 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't be so negative about voting/consensus/discussion per se (since even "objective facts" can be disagreed about by imperfect humans), I agree that it is important that people have rationales. The only rationale given for the original deletion proposal was that it seemed "like a travel brochure". Since the article is about a structure that is used for recreation and a base for travel in a certain area, I have a hard time imagining an article about it that wouldn't sound a bit like a travel brochure. Facts like how many people can sleep in the hut, for example, could be considered "travel-speak," or they could be considered very pertinent information about the structure.
I would like to see more about the connection to Jim Haberl, and any special circumstances regarding the funding and construction of the hut, since those would increase the value of the article; and whenever print sources become available, those would of course be good references, further nailing down the notability. But I do find it weird that this was nominated for deletion so quickly. What's the hurry? This is not commercial spam or a personal attack. -- Spireguy 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For situations like this, I like the essay WP:HOLE. This hut exists. Okay. Why should I care about it? What makes it so special that it should have its own article? Why couldnt it fit within a larger article on mountain huts in Canada? Resolute 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge this per redwolf it is already notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 05:35, 18 September 2006 (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/Jim_Haberl_hut&oldid=1070986886"