Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Manisty


 * 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. All delete "votes" have been withdrawn as article is now accurate and properly sourced. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Mount Manisty

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nonsense and it is accurately covered under Manchester Ship Canal Peterrivington (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete (see below for why) - the Manchester Ship Canal entry says "Mount Manisty, a large mound of earth on a narrow stretch between the canal and the Mersey northwest of Ellesmere Port" - so the claim it's a village is presumably a joke edit (vandalism). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Manchester Ship Canal as a plausible search term. No need for AfD. Pburka (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the new version, and support Featured Article proposal. Pburka (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect -- The article as I found it cites one source, which should qualify for WP:RS, as it is from an academic publihser. However, I very much doubt that it is sufficiently significant landmark, even in the flat country around Ellesmere Port to warrnat an article of its own.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a reasonable stub now, and I can see potential for at least a little expansion. (Just how big is the mound? Both areal and elevation measurements would be useful information.) Failing a 'keep', redirect to Manchester Ship Canal. Lady  of  Shalott  22:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - sounds like a reasonable enough article about a landmark and unique "geographical" feature (after all, we have three articles about Mount Trashmores, so...) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -covered in multiple reliable sources♦ Dr. Blofeld  07:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. --John (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is no longer inaccurate and if a 100 ft spoilheap is noteable the rabbits should be pleased to get a mention.Peterrivington (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    16:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have just asked Chiswick Chap, the only person other than the nominator (who has changed opinions) to say an outright delete, whether he might reconsider his opinion given the work that has been done since nomination. Lady  of  Shalott  16:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sympathetic as I am to the notion that piles of dirt should generally not be notable, there are no policy- or guideline-based arguments overriding the point that coverage satisfies the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - all traces of the earlier (joke-like) article have vanished, so I am pleased to join the Keeps. Well done Shalott  and others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lambian deserves the majority of the credit; I just did a couple little gnoming tasks. Lady  of  Shalott  17:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My involvement actually started as a joke. I came to this AfD item only because the nomination was procedurally incomplete; while fixing that I saw the nominator's rationale, and it struck me as funny we had an article on a pile of dirt, presumably created in good faith in a honest mistake. So I edited it to make this explicit, basically replacing "village" by "large mound of earth", properly sourced, and added a detail found in a Google search that increased the funny appeal, namely that this pile appeared "bleak and pock-marked with rabbit holes". After that it became like a sport to make this into a genuine article. I think the discussion can be closed now, as no one is still advocating deletion. Shall we next try to bring this to Featured Article status? :) --Lambiam 19:09, 8 October 2011 (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.