Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardy (hill)


 * 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 userfy to User:MVO Rambler/Hardy (hill). Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardy (hill)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not sure of what to think of this one. Anyone have the book to identify the sources, or is it a hoax? Talk tome (Intelati) 18:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I find this amazing. I have quoted the ISBN. It is so obviously not a hoax. Download the book (free) from the Book page on www.thehardys.org. Look through it, it represents months if not years of hard original work (text, lists, maps, appendices, photos, 236pp). Ask the Long Distance Walkers Association. Ask Country Walking magazine's editor, Jonathan Manning. Ask Alan Dawson, compiler of the Marilyns hill list. The book is validly published on the web (ask the British Library). It is also available on DVD (again, ask the British Library - this version has a slightly different ISBN - 978 0 9565533 5 5). What else am I supposed to do!?MVO Rambler (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete . It's definitely not a hoax. But it is original research, and, MVO Rambler's comments notwithstanding, there is a severe shortage of verifiable references: a search for the isbn throws up nothing meaningful and a search for "Hardys" or even "Hardies" gets bogged down in a morass of references to "(Thomas) Hardy's" or to "hardy souls". I also searched the Country Walking and Ramblers Association sites, without success. Jimmy Pitt   talk  20:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You actually have a point with the comment you made on your old userpage that this type of article is something we have several of already. The only difference I can see is that the Hardy designation seems to be one person's creation and it is not as widely used as those others.  But if there are enough sources out there, notability can be established.  However, note that it's up to you to produce those sources, not up to those voting delete.   —  Soap  —  01:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And here too.-- Talk tome (Intelati) 03:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources have been added to the article to prove the history of the Hardy hill list. A "See Also" has also been added pointing to the hill list's entry in the article "Hill Lists of the British Isles". It is a book formally lodged with the British Library under the ISBN given. The current third edition of the book is available on the internet for downloading (free) published under the ISBN given as per the British Library regulations. Again as per the British Library regulations there is a slightly different ISBN for the version available on a DVD (ISBN 978 0 9565533 5 5). It is accepted as an authority by the Long Distance Walkers Association. The editor of Country Magazine, Jonathan Manning, can vouch for the hill list's authenticity and provenance. Alan Dawson, compiler of the Marilyns hill list can vouch for the hill list's authenticity and provenance (he advised on the 1st edition of the book in the mid-1990s). The article "Hardy (hill)" in its subject matter, authenticity and provenance is an exact parallel to the article "Marilyn (hill)" (and others), which is on Wikipedia. What else can be done to convince people? I do not understand what the problem is. The hill list has been available for 18 years, published for 13 years and on a bona fide subject, has involved years of hard work in its compliation and maintenance and the article thus adheres to all the rules stated when going through the Articles Creation Wizard (in exactly the same way as other articles already accepted on Wikipedia). The book is published on and can be viewed and downloaded (for free) at www.thehardys.org (as allowed by the regulations of the Britiah Library). This site has however not been included as an external link to the article precisely so as not to contravene the rules on promotion, even though it is only a site made available for those interested in the Hardys hill list, exactly as the site(s) cited in the Marilyn (hill) article, already accepted by Wikipedia. The DVD can be sent to anyone who wants to have a look (a complementary copy) but it is the same format as the version on the web site (just a slightly different ISBN, as per British Library regulations, who hold a copy as required). If you want any further concerns or queries addressed I am more than happy to do so. Finally I would like to reiterate that the article complies with all Wikipedia's rules in my view. Again, what else can I do to convince people?MVO Rambler (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What you can do to convince people is to provide evidence that anyone independent of Ian Hardy has published anything about this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm - The hill list was featured in Country Walking magazine in the later 1990s, and mentioned therein a few times since then; similarly featured in the Long Distance Walkers Association (LDWA) magazine Strider and also in The Great Outdoors magazine; and in one of the main hill-walking community's publication/discussion groups centred round the Tacit Press. These and other similar references are of course not available to me at the drop of a hat (if I can locate them again at source now anyway) since I didn't realise at the time I would in the future need to provide such detailed evidence of my motives, veracity and standing ( I could provide my "CV"/life profile - that would certainly convince you of my honorable intentions, but you would probably consider it "promotional"!). As I understand the position Country Walking is preparing a feature now on the hill list following the publication of the third edition of the book for inclusion in an upcoming issue, as is the Ramblers magazine Walk, and possibly others. All I want to do is to help the general walker rather than just the hill-climber to get out and enjoy walking - the hill list is unique in doing this, and it's 18 year history is beyond doubt (I could produce many many e-mail addresses of such walkers who have been in touch with me down the years on the Hardy hill list - but of course they are private and I would not do so). I have no interest in making anything out of this at all. I am frustrated, exasperated, disappointed and saddened by all this. I agree entirely with the need to "protect" the Wikipedia concept (which I thought was welcoming, open and "inclusional"), but it certainly makes things difficult for the innocent newcomer being doubted by everybody! I will contact Country Walking, I will contact Alan Dawson (the Marilyns and the Hewitts), et al, and I have already e-mailed the LDWA. Thank you (genuinely) however for people's comments and advice on this page and elsewhere, I have no doubt as to their honorable intentions! - sigh! MVO Rambler (the 4 tildas didn't throw up my username)81.108.78.85 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete  without prejudice to recreation if sources are shown. Unfortunately, you are learning the hard way the sort of reception you get when you attempt to write articles about yourself or something you're associated with. Wikipedia is deluged with people thinking it's their right to promote their band/novel/company and regular posters get rather tired of this. Nevertheless, it's whether the subject of the article is notable that counts, not the person who wrote it. The one thing that might count in its favour are the articles in other magazines. If you can show us these articles (either by showing internet versions of the articles or scanning the pages), then we can check again. (By the way, if you want the four tidas to sign your username, you'll need to log back in.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Chris - but I reiterate I am not promoting anything, as I have explained and demonstrated more than adequately in my view. It just wouldn't occur to me to do such a thing.  This is a hill list, pure and simple, exactly the same as many other hill lists already accepted for Wikepedia articles.  It has been in existence for 18 years, published for 13 years.  I agree absolutely with your comments about promotional material, but this is clearly not such material!  I am irrelevant, but as I understand the rules, the article is notable.  My "reception" was not at all what I expected.  The first comment on my article was "is this a hoax", the second virtually accused me of inventing an ISBN - when I proved otherwise, did I get any apology? - no - and on it went ...  how am I expected to feel after such an onslaught!  As someone whose career was spent in the public service, much at a reasonably senior level, I am very surprised, indeed shocked, at the negative way newcomers to Wikipedia are treated!  However, c'est la vie!  I still hope common sense will prevail and the article will be accepted.  If not, I will keep trying! - watch this space.81.108.78.85 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with people posting articles about things they're involved in is that the vast majority of them have a blatant agenda to use Wikipedia to promote it, usually in the hope of gaining money or fame. As such, the rest of Wikipedia community has grown trigger-happy and tends to delete first, ask questions later. Contributions from anyone are welcome, but I do have to warn you that the vast majority of Wikipedians started off writing about things they're not personally involved in which is why there is a lot of natural suspicion of people who write about themselves. Wikipedia has a policy on conflict of interest and writing about yourself - even if you are trying to be impartial - is allowed but highly discrouaged.
 * I will, however, stick with my suggestion I made before. The General Notability Guideline is that notability is determined by other people writing about the subject. In your case, it seems like the best chance of establishing notability is with the magazine articles you mentioned. If you can show us these articles one way or another, we can then make a decision on whether this passes notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand (although I am not writing about myself, I am writing about a hill list - so if even writing about yourself is as you state allowed ...) - but I suspect that possibly promotional article-weary editors might have forgotten along the way the very long-standing British tradition of "innocent until proven guilty"!MVO Rambler (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * MVO Rambler, anyone who writes about their own creation is in a way writing about themself. I looked at another hill list article and it had third-party sources, so I could tell the list had been actually noticed by other people. Undoubtedly that's the case for your list too, but you do need to show that. Chris Neville-Smith is giving you very good advice. You could probably locate archives of the sources you claim, so why not do that? And if the list is really significant, why is not being currently talked about or recommended somewhere that you can link us to? Unfortunately, the new editors who are most likely to find Wikipedia unwelcoming are those who start by writing an article with the expectation that it will stay because they have pure motives for writing it. If you stick around here, edit different articles, nd get to know the community, I think you might form a different view. This article in particular now, I looked for external sources and found none on the internet, nor any reference to print sources. I believe I found it listed on Amazon as a 150-page out-of-print edition with no reviews. We need third-party sources to meet our standards for inclusion, this article does not demonstrate notability established by verifiable reliable sources, so I agree that delete is the correct outcome. When you collect the necessary sources I will help you to re-introduce the article. Franamax (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to Chris Neville-Smith and Franamax for restoring (some of!) my faith in the Wikipedia editorial concept, policies and processes. I take the point about the need to quote third-party sources to establish sufficient notability. I also conclude I hope that otherwise the authenticity and history of the Hardy hill list (and my motives!) have now been accepted. I am in the process of gathering such third-party sources (which will no doubt take a little while), and should this instance of the article be deleted I will return in due course with a notable third party referenced version.MVO Rambler (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Change to Userfy to give MVO Rambler a chance to add references. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Likewise, changing !vote to Userfy to allow the author time to provide references. Jimmy Pitt   talk  10:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's great (and thanks Franamax for other comments - I've responded on your page as I thought the article had been deleted already). Now I've got to find out how to "userfy"!MVO Rambler (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, that will be done for you by the administrator who closes this discussion. The article will be renamed to a title on the lines of User:MVO Rambler/Hardy (hill), where it won't be found by search engines but you will still be able to edit it. When you have found sufficient sources it can be renamed back again. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Even better! Assuming it happens that way when the discussion is closed, I guess I will get a message saying what it's called and how to get to it - as I have time I'll take the advice to get involved a little more in Wikipedia stuff (winter's coming!).MVO Rambler (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy per discussion above, without prejudice to move the article back into the article namespace if it can be appropriate sourced. -- Kinu t /c  22:48, 21 October 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.