Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. 6587 I

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 redirect to List of mountain peaks of Uttarakhand. MBisanz ^talk 01:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. 6587 I[edit]

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

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

I get the feeling this user would like to document on Wiki every nook and cranny, however non-notable, of the Indian Himalayas (please see my other deletion nominations!!) Creator has gone on a spree with these unnamed mountains. The references used are spurious (for some reason they insert a completely unrelated Times of India story into every article as reference) and the article has been padded with info about surrounding features. No reliable references are available that attest to its notability. Fails WP:GEOLAND MaysinFourty (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are Indian sockpuppet farms that use geostubs like this to push their edit count up. Look for runs of articles on villages or mountains that seem innocuous but where the ~~sourcing is total bullshit~~ sources, apparently valid, do not actually mention the article subject or bear no relation to the content they are linked to. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mountain peaks of Uttarakhand, fails WP:GEOLAND #4 due to lack of information beyond location. –dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND as there is no WP:SIGCOV of this topic whatsoever. Given that this topic's best source is one line in an obscure data list on a climbing fan club website (that gives a slightly different height at that), a redirect would be a pointless. Furthermore, I see no evidence in the article's primary source that P. 6587 I and P. 6587 II both exist. Just one mountain of that name is listed. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2020 (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.