Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosvinsky Mountain (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosvinsky Mountain[edit]

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

Non-notable mountain. WP:GNG states, if a subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is notable. However, all I see here is a single newspaper source(not significant by far), and a bunch of cites to a single dictionary. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 02:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course; quite notable as one of the two super-hardened facilities constructed in the Urals by Russia after the Cold War. There are plenty more references if you dig, and the Russian language references are also valid. Here is one from the Washington Post from 2003, for example. By the way, we have plenty of articles on similarly topographically distinct mountain peaks in the U.S. that have no bunkers inside. Antandrus (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, but reading your reply gives me the impression you did not read my rationale. I clearly noted the newspaper cite.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read your rationale, and I found a second newspaper cite. The one in the article was the Washington Times; I found one from the Post. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Antandrus. I can't vouch for what the Russian language references say, but looking at the article, this appears notable. AniMate 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also per Antandrus. Was also able to dig out this source and [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17518 ~~this one~~] (Edit: Noted as unreliable). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, World Net Daily, your second find, is not a reliable source. AniMate 03:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thanks for pointing that out. Still need to learn what's reliable and not ;) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Hamster: It needs more research beyond blogs and tourist reports. Yes, google is not an argument but there is only one dot.gov hit on what is claimed to be a major U.S. security threat [1]. Do you see the conspiracy here? Outline of an editor (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Antandras and Superhamster above. There is no question of similar mountains and/or military bases in the United States and the United Kingdom's notability. I've never seen articles of mountains or military bases in either country get AfD'd, let alone deleted. Deleting similar articles because they are in foreign countries with foreign languages, therefore English speaking editors have more difficulty in finding and translating sources, is a case of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not slander me by saying I am trying to delete this article for such a reason. My reasons are quite clearly stated above. I only know of this article, not others, as this article was used as a part of a hoax; it was used in a hoax that was basically viral marketing for some alternate reality game. The game article cited several sources, trying to appear to be real(not 'in game), but none of the cited sources had anything to do with what was cited, and in fact, some of the cited materials didn't even exist. That aside, although normally, I might withdraw this AfD based upon the sources found above, I would rather a clear consensus be formed. I am not saying that I still wish the article deleted, I just want consensus to be abundantly clear.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the nominator no longer wants the article deleted? Then just close it instead of using people's times for your benefit. People have an encyclopedia to write. AfD requires a nomination, if it's not been nominated, because nominator doesn't want it deleted please don't waste my time. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting anyone's time. It's their time to waste if they want to. I'm not forcing them, or you, to comment here. I didn't waste your time, you did. Get your facts straight.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are. This is AfD, and you say you are just leaving this for "a clear consensus to be formed." One already has been formed: the article should be edited, rather than people wasting their time, courtesy of you, discussing it. Let me know when it's been kept, and I'll be glad to edit it rather than wasting time at this AfD. I want to write a good encyclopedia. The way to do that is through improving articles, not through discussing things that are going nowhere. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. Again, get your facts straight. People are not obligated to comment here, it is their decision, just as it was yours, to comment here. If I had wasted their time, it would have been me forcing them to do something pointless. There is no forcing of any kind going on here. The AfD page displays the comments that have occurred at a specific AfD, and even if they had not seen such comments, when they got here they would have. I have done nothing, learn to take responsibility for your own actions. You chose to comment here, I didn't force you, you could have easily decided not to. Nothing is mandatory here.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course no one has to discuss this. But, because the topic is of value to the encyclopedia, and because it has been nominated for deletion by a nominator who no longer considers it deletable, if the encyclopedic topic is to be kept, editors who want it kept must waste their time discussing it here instead of editing the article, because it would take more time to get the article back, instead of keeping it.

I have offered to edit it if you simply withdraw the AfD. That's your decision: to nominate an article for deletion, decide it no longer needs deletion, but insist the debate keep going to "build consensus" instead of allowing willing editors to simply move forward and edit the article as has been offered. Edit and improve an encyclopedic topic or sit and chat about it, your choice is to chat. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never insisted that the debate continue, what I insisted on is that the AfD run the default amount of days before being kept. No one must waste their time in order to have the article kept as you wrongly construe. The rough consensus at this AfD so far is that it should be kept, however, I am leaving it open in case anyone else wishes to say something. Indeed, the article won't be deleted simply because you choose to not share your opinion, when such a rough consensus already exists on the matter. Unless of course you are making the allegation that all admins are stupid, and therefore won't be able to see what has taken place here, and close the AfD with the appropriate decision. Lastly, nothing is preventing you from editing and improving the article. You talk so much about wanting to do so, well, go ahead and do it.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh-you never insisted that the AfD continue just that the debate continue or vice versa. No one agrees with you on the AfD, not even you. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I never insisted the debate continue. I never said those words. What I said was, I just want consensus to be abundantly clear.. That does not mean letting or forcing the debate continue, what it means is letting the AfD run it's course, how it usually would, rather than stop it before it's time is up. If people still want to say why such an article should be deleted, I want to give them that chance.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about you both stop arguing over the most unecessary subject I've seen, and rather use this page as it is intended for, instead of wasting everybody's time? ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a bit stubby just needs more work. MilborneOne (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to show it exists, and as a real mountain it is inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2009 (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.