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.
Another place in uninhabited Antarctica which only exists on a map and is only referenced to a database/map. Not all geographical features on maps of Antarctica are notable. JMWt (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if this wasn't notable, the information would be merged Mount Coates, Mount Hordern or the David Range. If the USGS has documented these features then we should too, it's just basic common sense to merge information into parent articles rather than obliterating any mention of them.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. We have notability criteria for a reason, otherwise all features which exist on any map anywhere in the world would be notable. JMWt (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is wide consensus on here that geographical features documented by government institutions are considered notable though. It's just using basic common sense to merge the information which you seem to lack. Wikipedia is not better off eradicating mention of these features, whether anybody is living in these places or not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an attempt to extend the (frankly, bad) automatic notability conferred by GEOLAND on to uninhabited places which, being uninhabited, do not fall within GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. But you would find if you proposed at the village pump to delete all of these stubs you wouln't be successful and would find that many editors don't have a problem with articles on geographical features which are documented in government sources. With these it's more a case of finding the best way to present the information. I would support a merger of the ones which can't be expanded into parent articles. If there are concerns about the reliability of the source, then that's an issue to be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard. ♦ Dr. Blofeld12:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's a strong consensus that is quite the opposite, since the GNIS mess and the mass article creators. We know your views on this Dr. Blofeld, but after all of the kerfuffle you should really recognize that you don't speak for a consensus. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GEONATURAL for natural feature we need sufficient sourcing to be able to write an encyclopaedia article. Multiple sources are needed to sustain an encyclopedia article, in this case we have only one source (GNIS). Folding in sub-features that are also sourced to GNIS gets us no closer to notability, not least because notability is not inherited. WP:BEFORE has to be proportionate to the amount of effort expended to write the article in the first place, which in this case was practically zero since this article was apparently created by bot or bot-like editing (190 articles were created by Dr. Blofeld on the same day as this one). FOARP (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A search on "Hordern Gap" 1962 shows various sources. The gap was used, photographed and discussed by the 1957, 1958 and 1962–63 expeditions. Any traveller in this part of the Antarctic will be interested in what Wikipedia has to say. It passes WP:GEONATURAL. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with Alberts 1995, p. 343 then. It tells us who mapped this, where it is, some expeditions that passed through it, and who named it and why. Then there's the original 1965 ANARE report. An excellent case that this is encyclopaedic is that it is in another encyclopaedia, namely Stewart 1990, p. 470. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stewart, John (1990). "Hordern Gap". Antarctica: An Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. McFarland. ISBN9780899505978.
we know there was a scientific trip. That's not a sign in itself that a geographical feature it described very briefly was notable. It was an expedition in places where likely nobody had been before and few since - they named lots of things. And we don't normally take notability from other encyclopedias. JMWt (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, things being in other encyclopaedias and so should be in this encyclopaedia has been a fairly strong argument since somewhere around 2003. Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. But let's say for the sake of argument you are right.
You have a primary reference from the National Science Foundation which we can't use for notability, for fairly obvious reasons. And we have a secondary encyclopedia.
So at best you are offering two sources, of which only one is really a secondary source. Which isn't enough for inclusion.
In reality we commonly do not consider encyclopedia entries as notable in AfD debates. If we did, this would simplify hundreds of sports pages (for example) for people who only appear in old encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you know what a primary source is. It's isn't Fred G. Alberts's Names. Primary sources would be the original historical sources, the maps and records somewhere in Australia, or Norway. There is in fact no reason that we cannot evaluate Fred G. Alberts's Names for the purpose of notability. Fred G. Alberts didn't name the thing, and is quite clearly wholly independent from it. Xe didn't even come from the same countries as the people who named the thing, or go on the expeditions. Xe compiled and edited xyr compilation of named Antartica things over the decades afterwards, and xyr source is a secondary source. It tells you in its introduction that it was constructed by "collection and analysis of names data from historical and contemporary sources".
And yes, we can and regularly do include topics that have enough coverage in old encyclopaedias. Not that 1995 in any way falls under that heading. Indeed, including people that have already gone through the filter of making it into encyclopaedias is a Hell of a lot better than the way that our biographical articles are often constructed. It's a Hell of a lot easier to have an encyclopaedic biography all laid out to show the way, rather than the so-often-used living persons method of throwing huge piles of tidbit or incidental press mentions together.
Frankly, GNIS-based stuff is entirely zappable, in my view. The GNIS is wholly unreliable except for coördiates, and not even for them some of the time. Its process is quite broken. Starting again without the GNIS involvement is the best course of action. This is only tempered here in that the GNIS text has been copied almost word for word from the 1965 ANARE report, Horden Gap from the entry on page 68 and Gap Nunatak from the entry on page 56. We simply need to cite the actual report, and things like the Alberts and Stewart encyclopaedias, which were actually listed first in Britannica's bibliography for Antartica for a couple of decades and are obviously the sources to go to (although there have been two more encyclopaedias since, that Google Books doesn't know about), instead of the bloody GNIS. Uncle G (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added cite links to the other encyclopedia, and a bit about the 1962–63 expedition. I did not remove the GNIS links. GNIS is not always accurate, but usually gets coordinates right. I agree with Uncle G that if a reputable encyclopedia like Geographic Names of the Antarctic thinks a topic deserves a paragraph or so, that is a good reason to assume the topic deserves a Wikipedia article. We have plenty of room. To JMWt's point, a report by the leader of an expedition would be a primary source for an article on the expedition, but a valid secondary source for things the expedition found. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah so! I fixed the source definition in the article to point to the pdf version. So since this encyclopedia is published by the United States government, it is in the public domain, and could (with suitable attribution) be copied into Wikipedia, starting wiith
Aagaard Glacier 66°46'S, 64°31'W Glacier 8 mi long, which lies close E of Gould Glacier and flows in a southerly direction into Mill Inlet, on the E coast of Graham Land. Charted by the FIDS and photographed from the air by the RARE during December 1947. Named by the FIDS for Bjarne Aagaard, Norwegian authority on Antarctic whaling and exploration. Not: Glaciar Alderete.
and ending with
Zykov Island 66°32'S, 93°01'E Small island lying between Fulmar Island and Buromskiy Island in the Haswell Islands. Discovered and first mapped by the AAE under Mawson, 1911-14. Remapped by the Soviet expedition of 1956, which named it for Ye. Zykov, a student navigator who lost his life in the Antarctic in 1957.
I don't think we should be simply copying directories directly into Wikipedia, neither GNIS nor this one. We're supposed to write encyclopaedia articles, which are essentially summaries of what secondary sources say on the subject. WP:GEONATURAL explicitly backs up the idea that the articles we are aiming to write are encyclopaedia articles and not some other form of article, even when it comes to natural features ("The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" - emphasis added). These listings are not encyclopaedia articles but instead geographical dictionary entries, and we should not create articles that simply copies of them.
No objection to using it as a source, of course. Also no objection to copying it to Wikisource. However, to sustain notability we need more than a brief mention. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on the sources above, this is my opinion fwiw. Antarctica is essentially a unique place for two reasons: first it has essentially zero human population and second it is disputed territory. The sources used above are a) an exploratory report funded by one country making a claim to territory in uninhabited land and b) an encyclopedia which collates those named features.
In my opinion, the first is clearly unusable for notability. Otherwise every national report naming features anywhere in the world would be notable. Which is the same as saying every feature on every map produced by an official national body is notable. Which is ridiculous.
The second might be considered to be secondary and independent (laying aside the issue of whether there is "substantial" coverage on the pages noted above). But the fact that the territory is uninhabited and in dispute seems highly relevant - a source simply listing features on disputed land as determined by one party to the dispute would/should not be considered notable in my opinion.
Finally I think we have to seriously question the whole concept of notability and how it applies to the uninhabited continent. Other than in encyclopedic lists of names of features which seek for completeness, who has noted these minor features? Other than a handful of scientists, nobody. There are no books or newspaper articles or anything which cover these things in substantial depth because why would there be? JMWt (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia may serve as a gazetteer, with lists of features, some of which have their own article. WP:GEONATURAL says an article may be suitable if there is information beyond statistics and coordinates: enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. The entries in Geographic Names of the Antarctic meet that definition. It is irrelevant whether anyone lives there, whether it is in disputed territory, and how mny people are interested in it. A crater on the moon may have an article if there is enough to be said about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's all your opinion. I don't believe that the encyclopedia you cite meets the standard of substantial coverage - but even if it does, we need multiple sources - usually 3 WP:3REFS - which we simply don't have for an unimportant geographical feature on an uninhabited continent. The fact that one country in a territorial dispute has named multiple features doesn't give notability in itself, particularly when that naming has been roundly ignored by everyone else in every possible form of published media.
Comparisons with the moon are interesting - because of course there are many named features on the moon. But there the features are a) very large and b) referred to repeatedly in many sources. The fact that they have been named and exist is not enough.
Also: WP:NOTMIRROR "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: 3 Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are useful only when presented with their original, unmodified wording." and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
"Wikipedia may serve as a gazetteer" - a gazetteer is a geographical dictionary. WP:GEONATURAL on the other hand says explicitly that our goal is to write encyclopaedia articles, which are necessarily more in-depth than a mere gazetteer entry, or even list of gazetteer entries.
"The entries in Geographic Names of the Antarctic meet that definition" - I disagree. The entries in that book are geographical dictionary entries, not encyclopaedic coverage, which is essentially a summary of what secondary sources have to say about a topic. Wikipedia is both not a dictionary and not a directory, but these listings of features would be essentially akin to dictionary/directory content.
In other areas of Wikipedia (books, music, films, biographies etc.) we have not generally taken this kind of short-paragraph coverage as significant coverage of the topic. FOARP (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:5P1 says Wikipedia is, among other things, a gazeteer. That is, special rules apply to geographical articles. The information on geographical items may be presented in container articles, perhaps in list form, or in stand-alone articles. The main consideration in choosing the format is how much reliable information is available. In this case, there is enough to warrant the stand-alone format. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested to know more about where this quote comes from because WP:5P1 says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." - which isn't the same as what you quoted. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it comes from the essay WP:GAZETTEER. Of course there is also the essay WP:NOTGAZETTEER, which says:
Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which is a non-binding summary of some of the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, presently states that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers".
However, this should not be misunderstood as stating that Wikipedia IS a gazetteer. Wikipedia is very different from, for example, GNIS, or the National Land and Property Gazetteer, in that it does not simply include articles on every single place, populated or not, regardless of the notability of the location. Wikipedia policy specifically excludes that it should be a "indiscriminate collection of information", "dictionary", or a “directory”, which is what it would be if it simply included the kind of information that a classic gazetteer such GNIS does, since a gazetteer is ultimately a "geographical dictionary or directory used in conjunction with a map or atlas."
The idea that Wikipedia is a gazetteer is not something that has ever been confirmed by any consensus anywhere on Wikipedia. Every time it has been discussed no such conclusion has been reached. FOARP (talk) 12:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the essay quoted above was written by the person who’s quoting it. As is clearly stated, it has not necessarily been vetted by the community. Djflem (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP Why not open an RFC to see what the community generally thinks about having articles on verifiable geo landmarks which are in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Nobody wants stubs, but I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose. I fully agree with you on the concept of "inherent notability", I hate that term too, but the original objective of Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge". We are worse off not having any mention of these features than we are having them, even as stubs. The issue that that we shouldn't really be copying from this resource, and the information is poorly presented in masses of different articles at an inconvenience to our readers. Merging the scraps of information we have to parent articles which cannot be disputed to be notable is the way to go. I would actually support a bot which nukes many of the Antarctica stubs and merges the information we have into readable prose in more notable parent articles which may be stubs or undeveloped too, but I know the community wouldn't support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning open a RfC after the current AfDs have closed. Happy to cooperate with others here on the wording of a proposal and counter-proposal. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you'll find that more people support them as article subjects than oppose". As encyclopaedia article subjects, yes. Not as mere single-sentence entries, which are not encyclopaedia articles. FOARP (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A gazetteer often combines list and text format. An article like List of lakes in Foo County might have some general text on hydrography of the county followed by an alphabetic list giving name, coordinates, elevation and area. Some of the lake names would have links to articles giving more detail. In this case, the topic has too much verifiable detail to be stuffed into a list entry, which would look terrible on a phone. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This section should have been a level 4 header like the previous one, not a level 3, which is the header level of the entire AfD discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to David Range where I suspect more of these neighbouring Antarctic geographic features will end up after further AfDs if what constitutes notability for these geo features cannot be agreed upon. Even with the Hordern Gap paragraph, the article is borderline and would still be better merged. Rupples (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is clearly disagreement about whether the sources provided are sufficient for notability, but in addition to further analyses of these, it would be helpful if participants could specifically address the question of keeping vs merging, and of merging vs deletion. I started writing out a "no consensus" closure, but given the effort put in here I'm hopeful that further participation can resolve this. My personal opinion is that no broader RfC is needed. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk)21:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - still Delete as no reasons given for !keep in my opinion. Whilst I appreciate the efforts of the closers, I do not agree with the assertion that an RfC is not needed. Either we clarify or we continue having these arguments for hundreds of similar pages. JMWt (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are supposed to be discussions where one's views are put forward; not arguments. FOARP is working through Polish GEONAME stubs and has sought compromise by offering up redirects in many cases. The discussions, though limited in number of contributors, are amicable and I've observed that both "sides" respect each other and are genuinely seeking consensus. It would likely be beneficial if a similar approach is adopted for Antarctic GEO stubs. Rupples (talk) 11:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps, we need a wider discussion. Three participants in this discussion think it is a worthwhile thing to do, I don’t know how or why you think this is somehow not “genuinely seeking consensus”, in fact the opposite is true - we have clearly reached a sincere difference of opinion and seek the venue where the wider consensus can be established JMWt (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment isn't about starting a RfC of which I hold no view, it's about considering alternatives to deletion and sometimes working towards some sort of compromise by agreeing to a redirect or merge. Rupples (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then I misunderstood your comment. I don’t see how a redirect is helpful - who exactly is going to be using the search term? And there is virtually nothing to merge other than the coordinates, which is essentially useless information about, let’s not forget, a gap between two unimportant mountains in a large range of mountains in the uninhabited continent. Merging will eventually lead to higher level pages that retain coordinates and no other information. JMWt (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree (apart from the noninator) that the information should or at least could be held somewhere in Wikipedia. With this feature, and almost all features named in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, there is more information than just coordinates. WP:GEONATURAL suggests that if there is not enough for a stand-alone article, information on a feature can be held in a parent article. Rupples suggests the parent could be David Range.
If a redirect points to an anchor in front of a section on the feature within the parent article, the effect is much the same as with a stand-alone article. The user enters the feature name and is taken to text that describes it. A benefit of the merge approach is that the user sees context and related features, and so is encouraged to browse. A drawback is that there may be more than one possible parent, so there may be a risk of forking.
Perhaps we should refer this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica, so we can get a consistent approach to these features. I would be inclined to say that:
1) If the feature is in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, it should have a section or article. If it is not in Geographic Names of the Antarctic, it probably does not belong.
2) If the available text would easily fit on a phone screen, and there are no obvious sources for expansion, it should be merged to a section in a parent.
3) the parent should be a mountain range if applicable, failing that a peninsula, failing that an archipelago, failing that an ice sheet ...
4) links from possible parents to the parent section that holds the text are encouraged, and will help avoid forking.
My honest view is that locations in Antarctica, along with sub-sea formations (which includes rocks), belong in the same category as astronomical features (i.e., they are features that have never conceivably been inhabited that are highly unlikely to generate coverage and should not have any presumption of notability) and should be handled the same. I don't think there is any need to redirect them and we are kidding ourselves by thinking that people find these redirects useful, as well as greatly complicating the problem of cleaning up failing article by turning every AFD into a hunt for redirects/merges that are typically quite forced. FOARP (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am less anthropocentric. Inclusion of articles on people or their works must be subject to proof of notability, given the risk of abuse. Even with these, projects may define special criteria for politicians, athletes, populated places, and so on, allowing articles on topics that may not pass WP:GNG. With natural or scientific topics, there is far less risk of abuse, and projects often define special criteria such as WP:GEONATURAL. These topics may only be of interest to a limited audience, but there is plenty of room in Wikipedia. I suspect that more readers will be interested in natural features of Antarctica, which are associated with hardy explorers, than in articles on obscure beetles or minerals. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As we’ve noted above, these articles were rapidly created by importing a dataset. There is very little chance that anyone would find them interesting because we lack the data to say anything interesting about them. It’s hardly “anthropocentric” to say that some geographical entities lack sources and therefore lack notability. JMWt (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also I’d add to this that pretty much the only sources of the names of the features are a) expeditions b) a gazeteer of geographic names and c) national mapping agencies - then pretty much the only way that a reader on en.wiki would know to search for them would be if they’d already read those (most likely c) and have already seen 90-100% of all the information that exists and is likely to exist on en.wiki
Note that I accept that there are features in Antarctica where there is more to say, for example where there are research stations or big colonies of penguins. I’m only talking about the geological/geographical features where there is essentially nothing to say other than they exist and have been named. JMWt (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this quote from Aymatth2 above “3) the parent should be a mountain range if applicable, failing that a peninsula, failing that an archipelago, failing that an ice sheet ...”
I submit that this makes no logical sense. Basically we are saying that on the page for Framnes Mountains which is a big range of mountains there’s this other range called the David Range (which is non-notable and we have little to say about it) and two of the non-notable peaks within that range are Mount Coates and Mount Hordern (nothing much to say about them) and between them is a gap, but that’s also not notable and we have little to say about it. We’d end up with fractal sections on the page of cascading non-notable unimportance right down to “and in this non-notable bay, around the corner of this non-notable headland lies a non-notable island. A couple of miles away is this non-notable rock.” JMWt (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEONATURAL is the relevant guideline for information on natural geographic features, not WP:GNG. This AfD discussion is not the place to propose changes to WP:GEONATURAL. We should be concerned only with compliance of Hordern Gap,and perhaps of similar articles, with that guideline.
That said, a parent article for WP:GEONATURAL purposes will often describe a significant feature that also passes WP:GNG. The proposed David Range merge target certainly does. The description of David Range can obviously give detail on sub-features that are not themselves notable in the WP:GNG sense. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pumped up David Range. It could use much more detail on climate, geology, exploration etc., but is now structured so it would be easy enough to merge in articles on the features. The more I read about this rich topic though, the more I feel it would be better to expand the feature articles, which mostly have plenty of sources for more material, and to leave the parent as a summary. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right about the individual features but redirects at least leave open the possibility for future expansion. Good work on David Range, especially the image showing where the features are in relation to each other. Rupples (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suppose if a section on a feature gets too big, the redirect can easily be turned back into a stand alone article. Restarting an article that had previously been deleted would require more confidence.
The nearby Mawson Station is a busy year round research centre, and scientists often visit the David Range to study geology or glaciology, to service equipment, or just for recreation. So most of the features are well documented. But getting plain English out of scientific papers is far from easy. It could take time before the content is expanded. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, selectively, to David Range. On one hand it doesn't seem like there is a lot to say here, but inclusion in places like Alberts 1995 suggests we are better off, encyclopedically, having this information somewhere. Eddie891TalkWork16:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.