Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leyte Gulf


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Leyte Gulf

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:GEOLAND no inherited notability Darkstar1st (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i attempted a redirect and was reverted, also i pointed out the tools suggested in primary topic agree, the primary topic is the battle, not the gulf itself. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm the first one to recommend deletion for dubious articles, but an article about a substantial body of water strikes me as a reasonable subject. One problem is that there is such a huge number or sources that discuss the battle, that these sources overwhelm those that discuss the gulf but not the battle and make them hard to find - I found a few, though not with substantial coverage. Perhaps someone with better search skills than me could find some real coverage that isn't just about the battle. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a sizable body of water in the middle of a large country. Plus there's the battle. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * true, yet there is not a single source mentioning the gulf sans battle.(you do realize there is a separate article about the battle?) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggest some tools, Special:WhatLinksHere and Wikipedia article traffic statistics, both overwhellingly confirm the primary topic as battle. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is faulty. The battle does not qualify as a primary topic, any more than Britain does for Battle of Britain. Even if it did, that wouldn't preclude another article. Every significant body of water merits an article. It is absurd (and Western bias) to keep Round Pond (Connecticut) (32 acres in area) and not a gulf of somewhere around 7800 sq. km. Just because the battle overshadows the gulf itself and makes it difficult to find sources for the gulf doesn't mean they aren't there: e.g. "Trawl fishery of Letye Gulf", p. 44., A Review of the Auxis Fisheries of the Philippines and Some Aspects of the Biology of Frigate (A. Thazard) and Bullet (A. Rochei) Tunas in the Indo-Pacific Region, Leyte Gulf beach forest project cited, Philippine government Department of Environment & Natural Resources Executive Summary (2001-2005?): "Surprisingly, there are several important coastal and marine waters that are still unclassified. These include: Manila Bay in NCR; Nasugbu Bay, Tayabas Bay, and Balayan Bay in Region 4A; Albay Gulf in Region 5; Panay Gulf in Region 6; Leyte Gulf and Cancacao Bay in Region 8; ..." (bolding mine). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i am using the tools provided. ex using Britain in whatlinkshere, there is a wide variety of topics, none mentiion the battle using the same tool Leyte Gulf links almost exclusively to battle related articles. the same is true with the other tools. how did you determine the battle is not the primary topic, what tools did you use? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the scope of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is for disambiguation purposes, not determining notability. See also Cedar Creek (North Fork Shenandoah River) and Battle of Cedar Creek. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:GNG specifically WP:GAZ and WP:MAPOUTCOMES.--RioHondo (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:GAZ is an essay, not policy. WP:GNG "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail i doubt the above counts as significant coverage. WP:GAZ redirects to wp:geo which is the relevant policy here, Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. if you are able to find sources, i would be fine with a redirect and allowing the article to stay. the problem with the current config is most people are trying to find the battle, therefore primary topic should be our main concern. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Info: (1) A big, honking sea battle was fought there. (2) It supports commercial fishing. (3) The Philippine government hasn't gotten around to classifying it, despite its acknowledged importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added some info on its importance as one of the country's fishing grounds and marine reserve. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a body of water with historical importance in the Philippines, both politically and disaster response and mitigation. Added Haiyan Storm surge and relation with Battle of Surigao Strait WP:GNG Schadow1 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2015 (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.