Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hills of Porto Alegre

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. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of hills of Porto Alegre[edit]

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

I don't see how this list is notable nor encyclopaedic, none of the list entries are notable, and there is no evidence of significant coverage of this topic. LibStar (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seven hills of Rome, fine. Seven hills of Seattle, maybe. But the hills of Porto Alegre are not exactly world renowned. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:GEOLAND states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." ~~The hills in this list apparently do not meet the requirements for notability.~~ I actually just did a search on the first 16 of the individual hills using +"name of a hill" +morro +"porto alegre" and of the 16, 10 have additional information about them so this list technically is worthy of a keep if refs are found for each, or at least the majority, of these hills, which seems likely. Although fairly uninteresting content for outsiders, it could actually meet the requirements for WP:LIST. Having seen images, some of these hills are very beautiful and much more imposing than one would think, judging from their heights. Some are also nature reserves and observation peaks. - Takeaway (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that named and sourced geographical features are pretty much always considered notable. Not only is it acceptable, it is core to the goal of building an encyclopedia. Dennis - 2¢ 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Going through 16 of the hills mentioned, I found 10 reliable sources. It would seem that for many of the remaining hills sources can also be found, which makes it eligible for a keep under WP:LIST. - Takeaway (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of Dennis and Takeaway. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2014 (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.