Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peak 3025 (Vermont)


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Peak 3025 (Vermont)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We include all named geographic features of any significance at all. This is not a named feature. It's an unnamed feature.  DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Lack of participation.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)  02:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * cough cough Apparently the bad blood over relisting is was shed earlier today so here's my 2¢. If it wasn't PROD'd (which I believe is a useless dangerous process that shoulb be eliminate from the Wikipedia diet) and no one came and !voted, then relist it. Now I know relisting something you !voted in isn't great practice, but I endorse deletion for this one per nom. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't revert twice, but, the instructions at WP:NOQUORUM are pretty clear; If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD. A relist should also be completed by an administrator if they feel the nomination is controversial, which, coincidentally, is a thing non-admins are told not to do; Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. This would be preferred to wasting another week to receive no new comments. I have no idea what bad blood you're referring to? all I did was revert because it was improper and this was on my watchlist in case new developments came up. I didn't feel I had anything to add. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nominating rationale and in the hope that there won't be a third week of this. I had done a google and google books search for the peak at the time of the nomination and found only the smallest references to it possible; primarily "listsofjohn" and maybe this reference to a nameless peak at 3025ft. The only thing to note, is that the unnofficial name, alluded to but not stated in the article, for the mountain is Seth Warner Mountain and I found even less about the mountain searching for that. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NGEO Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:36, 14 October 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.