Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abrakurrie Cave

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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abrakurrie_Cave

Various good reasons which are not listed under Wikipedia rules: there is consens among cavers to be very carefull when publishing about wild caves. It is not a good idea to have random wild caves listed on a platform as popular as Wikipedia. The two main reasons are to protect natural resources and animals living in the cave, and second to protect the readers from getting harmed in dangerous wild caves.

The article is a stub, there is too much to do, which will most likely not be done by a caver (if they are serious). But others are not qualified to write this article.

Vanity: the article is not of use to anybody. The reader will not be able to visit the cave and it has nothing special, why it should be listed. If it had something special (eg geologic or biologic) this specialty should be listed on Wikipedia, not the cave.

And finally: there are probably half a million wild caves on earth. There is no reason why this one should be listed and others not. But on the other hand there is no sense in listing all the wild caves in Wikipedia, there are other institutions which do this, they are called cave registries. Jduckeck 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment—I think only the last two rationales have merit. The first argument in particular is utterly against Wikipedia purpose and policy, because we do not censor information to "protect" people from it. It's a good idea to have notable wild caves listed on Wikipedia...but is this one notable? Are all named caves notable? I would like to hear an explanation as to why this cave should be documented in an individual article rather than just merged back into List of caves in Australia—is there anything special about it, or can it only be justified if all named caves are documented? And what is the source of the name? Postdlf 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment—I agree, but I guess I did not make it clear enough: there are cavers who try to hide any information about wild caves which is definitely censoring. And a desaster from the scientific point of view. However, the idea is not to protect people from information, but to protect nature, to save our heritage for future generations. I would very much appreciate articles on wild caves which are of historic/geologic/... interest, allready published, famous, or especially if they are protected by other means: a solid gate for example. This is not the case here. AFAIK this cave is only protected by its remote location. And to make it clear: it is useless to list arbitrary cave names in lists like the above mentioned. --Jduckeck 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of children or caves. But I would say Delete anyway. As Jduckeck said, there are hundreds of thousands of caves and there's nothing to suggest this one is any more notable than the others. Cavecruft. --Last Malthusian 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Keep, passes 'average hole in the ground' test. --Last Malthusian 09:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. CAPTAIN CAAAAAAAAAAVECRUFT!!! BD2412 T 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow - vote changed to keep, based on Humansdorpie's excellent research. BD2412 T 18:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)`
• Weak keep. A couple of minutes on Google shows that this cave is more notable than most (although you wouldn't know it from the article) : it apparently has the largest single cave chamber in the southern hemisphere and the deepest penetration of Aboriginal art of any cave system in Australia. I don't entirely understand the comment above that "The reader will not be able to visit the cave", since it is obvious that there are a number of tour companies offering visits. Humansdorpie 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 17:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Humansdorpie's investigations. Agnte 17:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Notable cave as per Humansdorpie. Capitalistroadster 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per expanded information. Prehistoric art and size make caves notable, if nothing else. Postdlf 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep - we can consider only Wikipedia's criteria and guidelines in the AfD process, and Wikipedia is using only publicly available information for its articles (OBTW, if it's a vanity article, it would mean that the cave wrote it -- I seriously doubt it to be the case). Deleting the stub would not help nominator's cause (in fact, it will probably be a setback). Expanding the stub can incorporate the measures being taken to protect the archaelogical sites, availability to tourists, governmental policies about the cave, and so forth. B.Wind 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable place, meets guidelines for inclusion. If an article needs improving, improve it as various editors have done since it was created before and after nomination for AfD. Note Wikipedia:Editing policy (official policy) talks about Perfection Not Required, or, The Joy of Editing. The Wikipedia:Verifiability policy combined with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not allows inclusion of this article. The reasons for deletion did not relate to any policy or reason. Change of policy should be addressed through discussion at policy pages.--A Y Arktos 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a cave, it's an extant cave, and it's a notable extant cave. Meets all three criteria for WP:CAVES. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, there is no WP:CAVES... pfctdayelise 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.' Ambi 21:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep real notable hole in ground. Real troglodytes community of interest. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pfctdayelise 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Humansdorpie. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's part of our world, which we're documenting. As mentioned above, it is a notable cave. It's not policy to delete or censor articles to "protect the children" or similar. User:Rst.
• Keep per Humansdorpie Sarah Ewart 09:59, 24 December 2005 (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.