Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerro del Quinceo (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. Nominator makes some reasonable points, but consensus is clearly against deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cerro del Quinceo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Long standing unreferenced tag. The article seems to stem from a mention on an internet page here. A search for information on the web produced other information placed on the article talk page, but no unambiguous evidence of notability. A request for references at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mexico produced no results. The original AfD was withdrawn by the nominator because of evidence that the subject exists, however the subject seems to fail WP:GNG. RDBury (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete If A7 applied to locations, it'd be a speedy delete. No particular significance outside Estadio Morelos, definitely not enough to warrant a separate article, per nominator.  --Nutarama (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would think a 10,978 feet high mountain would be automatically notable.  This appears to be the major mountain next to Morelia and does seem a major geographical feature.  Significant coverage does exist .  Like many major geographical feature, I would presume it played a significant part in the long history of Morelia which dates long before Spanish colonial times.  Most refs are in Spanish so it can be difficult for English speakers to find them. --Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The mountain in the references you found seems to be a different mountain. By my calculations the mountain next to the stadium is 8924 ft.--RDBury (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Was trivial to source. Inactive volcano, almost 2,800 m high, and its foot lies in a city with a sports stadium on it. It's also the highest mountain in the municipality. I also found information about plant and animal life, but I can't read Spanish. It would be amazing if this mountain wasn't notable. I think this photo says it all: . Hans Adler 21:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment There are several book sources in spanish, including
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=PczGPkEO7oYC&pg=PA234&dq=%22Cerro+del+Quinceo%22+-Wikipedia&cd=5#v=onepage&q=%22Cerro%20del%20Quinceo%22%20-Wikipedia&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=y2QInQNfrsMC&pg=PA357&dq=%22Cerro+del+Quinceo%22+-Wikipedia&cd=7#v=onepage&q=%22Cerro%20del%20Quinceo%22%20-Wikipedia&f=false
 * Google translate does not work directly on Google books results: any spanish speakers here? DES (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These seem to be trivial mentions. My Spanish is limited but it looks like the first one just includes name in a list of local geographical features and the second one is about potable water supply.--RDBury (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, seems to fail WP:N, there are only trivial mention in references, and half of those refer to it as "Pico de Quinceo", which brings in questions of WP:V do the references on the article support the article; are there two minor "de Quinceos" or one with two differetnt names? The lack of response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mexico go to support the complete lack of nobility for this hill. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. "Cerro [del] Quinceo" (Quinceo "hill"), "Pico [de] Quinceo" (Quinceo peak) and just plain "Quinceo" (unless it refers to the stadium or the part of the city that is named after the mountain) is just the normal variation in referring to a mountain, and in most cases it's obvious that it's the same mountain. It's trivial to find "trivial" coverage of the mountain in lists of major geographical features. It would be extremely silly to delete an article on a huge inactive volcano right next to a city of 600,000, just because we don't speak Spanish and the Mexico project is dead. (6 messages over the last 12 months, most of them not from project members.) I have no interest in Mexico or geography and have somewhat deletionist leanings, but this is just plain stupid.
 * But the article probably needs renaming to either Cerror Quinceo or just plain Quinceo, since "Cerro del Quinceo", while plausible and probably also correct, seems to be rarely used outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Hans Adler 13:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per arguments above. ZachG (Talk) 17:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is clear. Everyking (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletion nominations like this, and the "me too" comments that they attract, make me despair. Do we really have people supposedly helping to write this encyclopedia who have such a lack of knowledge of what an encyclopedia is? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable geographic feature in Mexico. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 02:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment as Nom: There apparently are no criteria for the inclusion of mountains but I would think that an absolute minimum would be a reliable source giving latitude, longitude and height above sea level so there is no confusion as to which mountain is the subject. None of the references produced so far seem to have this information. One of the main arguments for inclusion is that the mountain seems very tall. But, as I mentioned in the talk page, Mexico is a very mountainous country and this one doesn't merit inclusion in Mountain peaks of Mexico. If there is a rule that every peak over 2500 meters is automatically notable then this qualifies, but I haven't seen a rule like that. Another argument is to produce a Google hit in Spanish with no translation. I don't have anything against using foreign language sources but it seems to me that to use a reference when you are unable to read it is irresponsible. Finally, the references that were added to the page come from the local board of tourism. Local sources can be used to verify information, but they do not establish notability.--RDBury (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing earlier discussions in which there was a clear consensus that maps are perfectly sufficient reliable sources for geographical features. But this was long ago and I don't know where to look for it. In this case we don't have an appropriate map. (Google Maps doesn't seem to have mountain data for Mexico.) But I have no doubt that such maps exist.
 * The important thing about the height is of course not the absolute height. Otherwise every little hill (or hole) in the Himalayans would be notable. The important thing is that this inactive volcano (=> plenty of fertile earth and interest by geologists) is the highest elevation (2,787 m) in Morelia (1,921), a city of 600,000, and surmounts the populated part of the city by 860 m. If people think about the landscape around Morelia they naturally think about the Quinceo as one of the first things. You can see this on the web. E.g. here, where a hiker mentions that Quinceo is not on a specific map. But here is a better example : It describes the village that existed before Morelia. Naturally it starts with the landscape, and the second paragraph starts: "Towering Quinceo, its peak immersed among the clouds, is the backdrop to this landscape." It's abundantly clear from all these sources (whether reliable or not) that there is only ont Quinceo mountain in the neighbourhood of Morelia. (There are also other things named after the mountain, including a formation called Las Tetillas de Quinceo which is unlikely to be confused with the main mountain itself.)
 * But I am not sure why I am spending so much time on this mountain that I am never going to see...Hans Adler 09:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Obviously notable geographical feature, sources claely exist. Edward321 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.