Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zschirnsteine


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Zschirnsteine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about two hills, each of which have their own articles elsewhere. No new or different info is on this article. It's a shame really because it is clearly written well by good editors in the perfect style. I just think it's redundant. I may have misunderstood, however. Dr Jarse (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral. This article is really about the single massif which has two separate summits, one of which is the highest in the region. However, provided no information was lost (i.e. anything not in the other two were moved), it could be turned into a dab page, but I wouldn't want to delete it outright. They were all based on German Wikipedia, where they have the same structure and the articles are about the same length. Bermicourt (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment This is an article about two hills which both have their own articles - I wonder if it's better off merging whatever information isn't in the two articles and then creating a dab page? SportingFlyer  talk  12:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I really don't see the problem with having a brief overview article here, even though we have articles on both hills. They are frequently referred to collectively; a range of hills is often more notable than the individual hills of which it is composed.  This may well be the case here, so the name should lead somewhere on Wikipedia.  This article, for instance, discusses the geology of the Zschirnsteine as a group.  Deletion is not appropriate whatever is done with the page.  A dab page is also not appropriate.  Zschirnsteine is a plural word.  It cannot possibly mean anything that is singular, so neither hill would belong on a dab page so named. SpinningSpark 15:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several ways of presenting the information can be imagined. If all is merged into one page, this is the most natural title. But as the Großer Zirnstein looks like it should have its own page, having three pages seems a reasonable arrangement. —Kusma (t·c) 08:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extremely high quality (quality=fitness for its purpose) short article performing what is necessary and good for coverage and for directing readers to more information about the separate peaks.  Not redundant, not bad by any reasoning.  The "Good article" system probably won't recognize anything that isn't 10,000 words long, but we oughta have some kind of "excellent short article" award for such like this, including conveying that it is deemed optimal length. --Doncram (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2018 (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.