Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mount Everest summiters by number of times to the summit up to 2015


 * 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 delete. clear consensus.  DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Mount Everest summiters by number of times to the summit up to 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Redundant WP:CONTENTFORK of List of Mount Everest summiters by number of times to the summit. This is as both lists are on the same subject but one is only up to 2015. This article should be redirected/merged to List of Mount Everest summiters by number of times to the summit per the above reason. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 19:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In your redirect attempt you said there was no reason given. However, a reason was stated in the introduction. Now you are stating its redundant, however, the list is different due to changes with time. This is like saying history is redundant because its in the past! I can't say I object to a redirect on the basis that the 2015 earthquake and two years is premature or two years is too minor a difference. I wish you had said that in the redirect, I assumed you had not even read it and now its on the block!! Fotaun (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I can see what you brought it to Afd: the redirect was rolled back. Yeah, this is odd. Fotaun claims such a split off is necessary because "Everest was moved slightly by the Earthquake." But even the claim of the Hillary Step being destroyed is contested at this point, and we're going to create a new list because an earthquake may have moved the mountain a few inches? Redirect Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Well there is another reason, 2015 provided a logical break-point to preserve climbing record history. The other list is quite hard to maintain with upwards of 600 summits per year. The photographic evidence of the hillary step changes means its inevitable that the climbing route changed, this marks the end of that Everest. Maybe its to soon and it should be a redirect, but the time is coming when this is more meaningful as the other list diverges. Fotaun (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or move to userspace - this seems to be a personal project. The count doesn't restart because of an inch movement. There are much larger variables involved in a summit of Everest. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True its not even really a valid redirect term. Change !vote above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment well I can verify that its not a personal project. Fotaun (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, per your first comment above, see WP:CRYSTAL. In the meantime are you agreeing that it's premature at the very least and your previous roll back of the nominator's redirect was in error? If so, and you're ready to redirect, yourself, now, we can end this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If you want a redirect based on what you have said here, that's fine with me. I objected to the first re-direct in part because I had tried to explain my rationale for the page in the introduction (it said "why up to 2015" though it stated reasons for that year in the introduction). What I am seeing is that you disagree with those reasons, which I can respect. I think you can see its a really different issue from my perspective if you want a redirect because there was no reason given for the page, which is not really accurate, versus disagreeing with my reasons for making the page. Cheers Fotaun (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a fork, there's no reason to merge this back into the main article. The title seems far too specific to justify a redirect Power~enwiki (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see any value in a merge or redirect. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a content fork/personal project per most of the above. To say that an earthquake "marks the end of that Everest" sounds more than a bit silly - people are still climbing a mountain called Everest, and while I understand it's become easier to do so over history for any number of reasons, the result of an earthquake is unlikely to stop people doing it or suddenly make more people do it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Its supposed to be a history article, that quote is a euphemism which your taking literally. Fotaun (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that it's a history article. The article referred to earlier (which doesn't put an arbitrary year into the criteria) is likewise a history article and covers the more logical group of "everyone who's climbed the mountain", rather than the arbitrarily-defined "everyone who climbed the mountain until this point I chose". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is why I redirected the article in the first place (the list is arbitrary). -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 02:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Entirely agreed with you. Given that the author disagrees, I felt it was important to present my reasoning there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - this is total trivial cruft. Why is this even being discussed? Bearian (talk) 22:11, 30 May 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.