Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gap Nunatak


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Hordern Gap and merge encyclopedic content. I'm not seeing any rationale for a standalone page here, and I'm not seeing a strong argument against including a few sentences of information from this page at the target. I'm aware that the target I've listed is also at AfD, and I may get around to closing that as well; if that article does not remain as a standalone, this article should be upmerged to the next logical article. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Gap Nunatak

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Only a database/map ref on the page for a long time. It appears to be a feature (essentially a summit) in a gap in a mountain range in uninhabited Antarctica. We could merge or redirect to Hordern Gap but I'm not convinced that is notable either. Features on maps in Antarctica are not inherently notable. JMWt (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. JMWt (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge Merged it into Hordern Gap. Even if that wasn't notable either, we'd merge it into the nearest feature which is. I wish you'd start using common sense that merging these Antarctica stubs is the way to go, not deleting mention of them. Yes, if the USGS renders them worthy of mentioning then we should, but that doesn't necessarily mean all will need their own article.♦  Dr. Blofeld  11:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you telling me things, thanks User:Dr._Blofeld. You created all these stubs which are obviously not notable, you have to take responsibility for redirecting them if you don't want them deleted. Maybe use a bit of common sense you seem so keen to ask others to use. JMWt (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At an extreme, the information would all be merged into a section on David Range. Yes, it's common sense to do it. The encyclopedia is not better off eradicating mention of these features.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy of this encyclopedia is to include things that meet the notability criteria. You've chosen to include many geographical features which not only fail to have the requisite coverage in Reliable Sources, cannot ever meet the standard because they are minor features in Antarctica that only feature on a map. That's it. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They are documented, even if briefly by a US government source which renders them worthy of mentioning. So we should do the same. It's just a case of merging information. Back in 2010 there was no way of knowing how much information would become available for these features. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just having been mentioned by a government source does not mean we have to mention them anywhere. For example, all of the street-names, post-codes, and place-names (and indeed, house-names, which can be seen in the census) in the United Kingdom are recorded in government documents, but it would be ludicrous to create lists of streets/post-codes/named locations under each article dealing with the area into which they fall. Some things are simply WP:UNDUE to mention, being aspects of a larger thing that are too minor to mention. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - These bot/bot-like created articles do not sustain any notability. In this case, the standard is WP:GEONATURAL, but there is clearly not enough content here for an encyclopaedia article, which would necessitate multiple sources. Hordern Gap is also non-notable so no point merging there. WP:BEFORE has to be proportional to the effort put into creating articles in the first place, otherwise an immense amount of work is required to check the notability of mostly-failing locations. In this case, we can see that on the same day Dr. Blofeld created this article, they created 1,122 other articles. In these circumstances, WP:BEFORE can be minimal. As I've said many times in the past, I don't see any reason to admonish Dr. Blofeld for having done this as it was more-or-less accepted behaviour in 2010, and they have expressed regret on numerous occasions for this. However, I have to say that redirection just isn't a solution in this case since there is nowhere credible to redirect to here, and the idea that these places should be converted into redirects is a massive impediment on doing anything about them. FOARP (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If for some reason Hordern Gap doesn't have much coverage, then we would merge the information all into the "Features of the David Range" section on David Range. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The locations are already mentioned there. Nothing to merge. FOARP (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Mentioned" in name only. There is some information available about them worthy of mentioning. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What is there to say about them other than their name? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a directory or database. FOARP (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Physical data and a brief history of the exploration/cartography. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But that isn’t summarising secondary sources (which is what we do in an encyclopaedia). It is simply copying content off GNIS. FOARP (talk) 15:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've long said that creating short stubs enmasse without a lot of data isn't the way to build the encyclopedia. But back in 2006-2010 it seemed the most productive thing to do for the project to function like a bot simply identifying topics and I think the project has benefited from a lot of the stubs which have been expanded on numerous subjects. You'll find that the vast majority can either be expanded or merged as I tended to create traditional encyclopedia subjects. The Antarctica geo stubs would likely all benefit from merging, perhaps there is a way to use a bot to merge many of them into parent articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. Then perhaps you need to focus yourself on dealing with the problem - given by your own admission you are the origin of many of the problematic pages. JMWt (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time needed to devote hours to Wikipedia I had 13 years back unfortunately. I would be happy to propose a bot to merge many of the stubs on lesser features into parent articles, but I think you would find that the community would expect an assessment of the notability of each article to be made first. This is why I actually proposed to nuke all of my stubs in about 2015 and it was rejected. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well there it is then; you don't have time to undo the problem you've created but you do have time to bad-mouth others who are addressing their notability. Anyway, I'll continue marking the most blatent of the non-notable stubs you created for deletion and in return I'd hope that you never, ever suggest I'm lacking in common sense again. JMWt (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Gap Nunatak is in the same two encyclopaedias cited at Articles for deletion/Hordern Gap, page 268 in Alberts's and page 368 in Stewart's. Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Mentioned, yes. How is that significant coverage? JMWt (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to David Range where I suspect more of these neighbouring Antarctic geographic features will end up after further AfDs; so we may as well omit the interim merge to Hordern Gap. Agree with Dr. Blofeld it makes no sense to eradicate these features from the encyclopedia, but it would improve the encyclopedia to present the material in an enveloping article, where more context could be given. As an aside, I don't see any of these Antarctic geofeature stubs causing problems for the encyclopedia so long as the data is verified. Notability guidelines have tended to become stricter over the years and it could well have been the norm for this type of article to merit a standalone page when created. Rupples (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2023 (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.