Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On top of the world (topography)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I just want to add to the enthusiastic page creator that editors here are saying WP:TOOSOON which doesn't mean NEVER, it just means NOTRIGHTNOW. If you need a copy of this article, contact me or go to WP:REFUND or talk with another administrator. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

On top of the world (topography)

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

This page appears to be self-proclaimed OR: User Gigitoe says elsewhere (Reddit) that he made up the name. So this surely does not belong in WP, at least for a few years. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. It looks like a promotion of an external project . Bazza (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Bazza, the "external project" you linked (https://ototwmountains.com/) is actually the primary source of information regarding the OTOTW status of a mountain. It is a database of on-top-of-the-world mountains and their measurements. It's in a similar sense to how Peakbagger.com is the primary source of information for the elevation and prominence of many mountains on Wikipedia.
 * With all due respect, I have no interest in promoting a website that is merely an informational source without any monetization. I do, however, have interest in bringing to awareness an idea that has demonstrated public interest, as well as interest among individuals who are more specialized in the field of topography and topographic prominence.
 * I hope you can keep this in mind before continuing to push forth the deletion process. I believe we are on the same page regarding our need to keep good content on Wikipedia, it's just that we may have some differing opinions on the merits of this topic. I discuss the "reliable, published sources" of information regarding this topic in another comment below. Gigitoe (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: I certainly understand where you're coming from. The concept of 'original research' as described on the Wikipedia page can indeed be a bit difficult to navigate, especially as it pertains to newer concepts. I can see how it might seem like this article falls into that category, given that I am the original author of the "on top of the world" concept, the initial draft of the article, and the Reddit post. It's important, though, to note that Wikipedia's definition of "original research" isn't meant to exclude creators of a concept from writing about it. Rather, it primarily addresses the issue of asserting scientific claims that are not backed up by reliable sources or substantiated evidence. On No original research, OR is defined as "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." To prove that something is not OR, "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article" is needed.
 * In this particular case, I'd like to reassure you that the concepts outlined in the article are well-founded and backed by rigorous research. A research paper that thoroughly explains these concepts is accessible at this link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600.
 * This research paper is included in Peakbagger's glossary. Peakbagger is a trusted and frequently referenced source with hundreds of citations within the mountain-related pages on Wikipedia:
 * https://www.peakbagger.com/help/glossary.aspx.
 * Also worth noting is that the research paper has garnered media attention, with an article published in Mercury News, a credible news outlet: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/21/what-california-cities-have-the-best-mountain-views-its-not-the-bay/.
 * There is also a website that provides information on whether a particular mountain is on top of the world. Since a previous user mentioned that they did not know where OTOTW listings were coming from, I made sure to include citations to every mountain with listed on-top-of-the-world status:
 * https://ototwmountains.com/
 * Finally, to address the "why" of this article, I decided to write it because there was good interest from not only the general public, but also the creators and pioneers of the widely-used topographic prominence metric on a prominence-related forum on Groups.io. The purpose of the Reddit post, as mentioned, was to assess public interest to see if it's noteworthy, not for use as a primary source. After posting a map of OTOTW mountains in California, many on Reddit have expressed interest in learning about such mountains in other parts of the world.
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/14ec311/what_is_an_on_top_of_the_world_mountain_there_are/
 * I appreciate your concern and your commitment to maintaining the integrity and reliability of information. If there are any specific points in the article that you are unsure of, I would be more than happy to delve deeper into it. Our shared goal here is to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of the content, and your input is important for achieving that. Gigitoe (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * https://ototwmountains.com/
 * Finally, to address the "why" of this article, I decided to write it because there was good interest from not only the general public, but also the creators and pioneers of the widely-used topographic prominence metric on a prominence-related forum on Groups.io. The purpose of the Reddit post, as mentioned, was to assess public interest to see if it's noteworthy, not for use as a primary source. After posting a map of OTOTW mountains in California, many on Reddit have expressed interest in learning about such mountains in other parts of the world.
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/geography/comments/14ec311/what_is_an_on_top_of_the_world_mountain_there_are/
 * I appreciate your concern and your commitment to maintaining the integrity and reliability of information. If there are any specific points in the article that you are unsure of, I would be more than happy to delve deeper into it. Our shared goal here is to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of the content, and your input is important for achieving that. Gigitoe (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern and your commitment to maintaining the integrity and reliability of information. If there are any specific points in the article that you are unsure of, I would be more than happy to delve deeper into it. Our shared goal here is to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of the content, and your input is important for achieving that. Gigitoe (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern and your commitment to maintaining the integrity and reliability of information. If there are any specific points in the article that you are unsure of, I would be more than happy to delve deeper into it. Our shared goal here is to ensure the accuracy and usefulness of the content, and your input is important for achieving that. Gigitoe (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Authors can write about their own subject, but if their work isn't being written-about in detail by other, unconnected reliable sources, then the work isn't yet ready for Wikipedia. It's probably WP:TOOSOON. The current sources in the article don't demonstrate that it's notable yet, and the idea must be promoted elsewhere before coming here. Elemimele (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Maybe this will be considered a significant measure one day, but it is not now. The page creator cites his own research paper (primary source, so we don't count that for notability), a single newspaper article from a couple of weeks ago (appears to fail regarding independence, and reliability in this context would be highly suspect), and a website. The website was created 2 days ago, by a private individual, apparently in California. That does not appear to be secondary, nor independent, nor reliable). So we are left with nothing at all. As I say, it may become significant one day, but policy is that Wikipedia is a lagging measure of notability. It is not here to promote the measure. So a very clear delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. A USA-centred article by someone who thinks the world consists of the Himalayas and California. No mention of Aconcagua (much higher than anything in California), for example, or any other of the peaks !n the Andes, apart from Chimborazo. No mention even of Denali (or McKinley). Note that Mount Whitney is not even the highest mountain in the USA, let alone the Americas. Nonetheless, there is an (almost illegible) map of peaks in California. Athel cb (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * While I agree with the deletion policy due to the concept being WP:TOOSOON, I hope you don't mean that this article is written by someone who "thinks the world consists of the Himalayas and California" in the literal sense. The list of 7000m+ OTOTW peaks includes mountains not just in the Himalaya, but also in the Karakoram, Tian Shan, Transhimalaya, Pamir Mountains, Hengduan Mountains, and Kunlun Mountains. The reason is that the highest mountains in the world are found in Asia. If it's a list of OTOTW mountains ranked by topographic prominence, then we will see the representation of peaks in other parts of the world, such as Aconcagua, Kilimanjaro, Denali, etc. All of the Seven Summits are OTOTW by a long shot.
 * The California map is only for the sake of providing a regional example. But there's plenty of OTOTW mountains found around the world. I thought it'd be better to include a example of one particular region rather than none at all. Gigitoe (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. This self promotional article. It has no sources that meet WP:GNG. The author is also linkspamming their associated website across hundreds of articles. - MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hi MrOllie, I included the links to the website only after a user mentioned the desire to see sources for the OTOTW status for different mountains, so I think it's important to pause and consider this context before accusing me of "linkspamming". As I mentioned in another comment, the website is a database of the OTOTW status of various mountains worldwide. It's similar to listsofjohn.com and Peakbagger.com, the latter of which is one of the most frequently-cited websites in the mountaineering parlance on Wikipedia. The research paper for this concept (https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600) is even mentioned in the glossary page of Peakbagger.com under the "Jut" section.
 * I don't think it's fair to simply label this as self-promotional, considering that at the very core, this is a means of measuring a mountain: a scientific idea, not a personal page or promotion of a sellable product. You can completely detach my name and livelihood from the idea, and the idea still stands: a mountain is OTOTW if it matches a certain mathematical criteria. I hope we can, at the very least, focus on the scientific arguments that are being advanced, and point to falsifiable statements in the research paper and article before making such generalized and sweeping claims. If I'm simply spreading false information and asking people to buy my product, by all means, delete everything and ban my account. But unlike the way you made it sound in your comments, that's not what I'm doing; things are much more subtle than that.
 * It takes lots of effort and work to create new knowledge, and very little to tear it down. I hope that you can, at the very least, read the research paper and demonstrate your understanding of the pros and limitations of the concept, before being so intent on removing this work. Sometimes, it may be good to give the benefit of the doubt, especially in areas that you may not the domain expert in. Gigitoe (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your self published site and arxiv preprint aren't a usable source for anything on Wikipedia. I understand that someone asked you for a source, but to then add your own website to more than a hundred articles in response absolutely was spamming as we define it here. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a peakbagger myself, this is an interesting concept that I'm going to be looking further into. I hope it takes off. But until we get some reliable sources that are independent of the author, this is just WP:TOOSOON. -- Scott Burley (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I appreciate the energy of, I'm not seeing a WP:RS source. This is WP:TOOSOON. I'm also concerned that this might be self promotion by a user.  In reviewing some of the sources mentioned by Gigitoe, https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600 is a submitted paper which has very low weight.  The Mercury News article is interesting and congratulations are due, but one article in a paper is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.  I don't see top of the world mentioned on the peakbagger glossary. The https://ototwmountains.com/ site is a user created site and not WP:RS.  Personally, I feel like the designation adds clutter and is somewhat subjective, though others may disagree. If this article is deleted, my hope is that Gigitoe will undo his many edits to various mountains and stay with Wikipedia and contribute in a meaningful way. Cxbrx (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a peakbagger myself, this is an interesting concept that I'm going to be looking further into. I hope it takes off. But until we get some reliable sources that are independent of the author, this is just WP:TOOSOON. -- Scott Burley (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I appreciate the energy of, I'm not seeing a WP:RS source. This is WP:TOOSOON. I'm also concerned that this might be self promotion by a user.  In reviewing some of the sources mentioned by Gigitoe, https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01600 is a submitted paper which has very low weight.  The Mercury News article is interesting and congratulations are due, but one article in a paper is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG.  I don't see top of the world mentioned on the peakbagger glossary. The https://ototwmountains.com/ site is a user created site and not WP:RS.  Personally, I feel like the designation adds clutter and is somewhat subjective, though others may disagree. If this article is deleted, my hope is that Gigitoe will undo his many edits to various mountains and stay with Wikipedia and contribute in a meaningful way. Cxbrx (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete this hasn't caught on as an idea. I can't find sourcing for it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Original author here - you all have brought forth a good reason for deletion, namely that the website is WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia standards. Just wanted to clarify that I included links to the info database (https://ototwmountains.com/) only after a user mentioned wanting to see sources for these OTOTW claims, not for the purposes of spamming the website. Also, to respond to the point of Cxbrx, in the Peakbagger glossary, the paper is linked in "Jut" section under "this article"; OTOTW mountains is one of four main ideas listed in the paper. My apologies for the ruckus - should have been more thoughtful and more aware of Wikipedia guidelines before making such sweeping changes. I'll be deleting my edits to all other mountain pages. Gigitoe (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , you are right, I was wrong, the link is there, I missed it, I search for "top" hoping to find "top of the world".Cxbrx (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One option would be to include the info as a subsection of the existing Wikipedia page on topographic prominence. Pixpixpix (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not without some kind of source from a proper publisher, and we don't have that here. MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This work should not be included in the Topographic prominence page yet. The paper was submitted in 8/2022.  It is unclear to me to which journal it was submitted.  The Merc article is a single article, it does not mention "top of the world," instead it is about a classification system that is likely related to top of the world.  Before adding this to Topographic prominence, I'd prefer to see an article in a peer-reviewed journal as opposed to references to websites including peakbagger. Cxbrx (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2023 (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.