Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gipmochi


 * 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. Clearly a consensus to keep, the nominator's somewhat out-of-process second delete !vote irregardless. (non-admin closure) &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  10:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Gipmochi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable peak as far as I can tell from the sources. It figures prominently in the current events as the Chinese-claimed border of Doklam. But all these issues are amply covered in the Doklam page. There is little in this article about Gipmochi itself. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The deletion seems make a mistake. The Doklam area dispute between China and Bhutan has nothing to do with Gipmochi (as the tri-junction point) and the 1890 Anglo-Chinese convention (which only set the now boundary between China and India, but not the boundary between China and Bhutan). They are two things. And Gipmochi is not belong to the Doklam area. What the article Gipmochi need is adding more sources of geography and climatology. Please don't delete the article before you have checked all possible relevant books, articles and other sources in all languages, especially those published in India, China and Bhutan. Sgsg (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable natural feature per WP:NGEO and is featured in multiple reliable sources. The ongoing China/India border dispute will continue to add to these per WP:NOTFINISHED. Philg88 ♦talk 15:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - a mountain located at a contested junction of three countries is without doubt notable for its geopolitical value alone. A Google books search for Gipmochi returns almost 1000 results, further attesting its significance. -Zanhe (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , How many of these sources discuss the mountain per se, other than mention the fact that it is referenced in the Anglo-Chinese Treaty of 1890? Note that the convention itself is covered in the Convention of Calcutta page, and the current India-China staff is covered in the Doklam page. What else can be said on this page, other than to duplicate the content from those pages? WP:GNG requires two reliable sources that discuss the topic, not merely mention it. I don't see them for Gipmochi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - a mountain at the center of current China/India standoff definitely has a value. Yes it needs more geo information but surely it is important. Zibeaster (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - a mountain located at a contested junction of three countries. DLinth (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * SNOW Keep A mountain referenced in multiple reliable sources, not the least of which involve significant coverage of its role in a not-significant regional dispute.  S n o w  let's rap 00:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (I don't normally !vote on pages that I nominate, but here I suppose more elaboration is needed.) As per WP:GNG, we need reliable sources that give significant coverage to a topic, and we normally require at least two such. Gipmochi is mentioned in a lot of reliable sources because it is stated as the trijunction point in the Convention of Calcutta, and this fact has been reproduced over and again. But these sources mere mention to the topic; they do not constitute signifanct coverage that allow us to develop an article out of them.
 * The current standoff between India and China has been called "Doklam standoff" in sources (over a million of them), and so it is covered in our Doklam page. If the conflict develops into something bigger, I am sure we will spawn an independent page for it. So, once again, the current standoff does not warrant a page on Gipmochi. Moreover, Gipmochi represents the Chinese claim on the trijunction point, where the Bhutanese maintain that Batangla is the trijunction point. Almost all the internet mapping sources currently depict Batangla as the trijunction point. (See the map.) So, this article is in danger of becoming a WP:POV fork of Doklam, presenting a one-sided view.
 * So I believe that, as per policy, this page should be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the current political situation, WP:NGEO applies and establishes notability. Philg88 ♦talk 16:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, if this is to stay as purely a geographical page, then perhaps you can support me in getting rid of all the political stuff from the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There might be an argument for scaling back the content a little, but I don't think we need to excise all reference. WP:GEO articles tend to contain a lot of historical/regional info, in addition to the natural history and there's no problem with that. We need only keep the article for becoming an excessive depository for alternative/reduplication acounts of the content in the Doklam article, per WP:POVFORK.  But some mention of these events will surely remain.  S n o w  let's rap 02:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain per which policy should this mountain be deleted? Both nDroklam and Gipmochi are geographical features. Some people have already made Doklam as a one-sided POV fork of 2017 Sino-Indian stand-off, and one should definitely not do the same to Gipmochi. --146.96.252.3 (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets WP:GEOLAND.   Dr Strauss   talk   please use when replying 09:11, 3 August 2017 (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.