Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Kerr (Antarctica)


 * 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 merge to Porthos Range. ✗ plicit  00:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Mount Kerr (Antarctica)

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

Mass-produced import from GNIS; if only the name is known it doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND4, and I cannot find further details. Search results are mirrors or WP and GNIS. Mere existence is not notability. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. More than the name is known, and the info is present in the article. Most Antarctican geography articles are about the same length, e.g. Mount Johnston, Mount Kjerka, Mount Lacey, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merely knowing that it EXISTS at certain coordinates because a plane once flew over it and took a photo is NOT sufficient to pass GEOLAND4. That's a worthless WP:OSE. There is a small number of users who have mass-produced articles on places in Antarctica by simply duplicating the GNIS, and their existence is no basis to keep this when they should never have been created either. Reywas92Talk 22:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * GEOLAND #4 states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." How it was spotted and who it's named after are not statistics or coordinates, so you can't use that to justify deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is laughable. "Was named" is by no means notable information beyond existence, nor is "was seen from an airplane"; these are rote identification data, even if not numbers. Height would be more useful but we don't even have that! Your bar is on the ground, and a single simple database entry is utterly inadequate. Reywas92Talk 04:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or alternatively redirect/merge to Porthos Range - This article was literally COPIED directly from GNIS. Not a COPYVIO per se as GNIS is public domain but honestly we need to do better than a single-source article that consists only of data copied directly from a database, with NO indication of notability, and that's it. This is a classic example of why Wikipedia is not a gazetteer because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we have encyclopaedic articles with actual content in them, and not simply entries from a database of every named feature in an unpopulated continent. FOARP (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Porthos Range. For these Antarctic locations where very little can be said, I suspect a table listing the various peaks/etc. at the range article would be the most useful way to present this information. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Hog Farm. There is always somewhere to merge to for geostubs - WP:ATD.Ingratis (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete. Fails GNG and NOTDATABASE. Avilich (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Porthos Range. Here and there I see work has started in folding some of these Antarctica stubs into more substantial articles. Allowing that work to continue is preferable to zapping out individual stubs. Mccapra (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2021 (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.