Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont Roonui

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 00:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mont Roonui

Mont Roonui (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nothing in the article or the sparse ghits indicate any notability. While a lack of ghosts is interesting, it doesn't appear to be particularly notable Travellingcari (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - Consensus has consistently found that geographical features such as this are inherently notable (see WP:OUTCOMES). This is of particular notoriety as it's one of the principal peaks on the island of Tahiti and the highest on Tahiti Iti. --Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I apologize for not noticing that before and have now looked over Wikipedia:GEOG#Geography. I don't see that as an absolute keep but will withdraw this if consensus is that it's an automatic keep. I think that the article needs to assert why it's notable i.e. one of two principal peaks as that isn't apparent in google either. Travellingcari (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There was a ghost section when I nominated it. Travellingcari (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I the article creator tried to redirect it just now but obviously the nominator wants a discussion. A mountain of 1300 odd metres is as notable as any -the second highest point on Tahiti, perhaps French Polynesia too-expand it or redirect it. The worst thing possible though is to base notability on google hits of rplaces in the world as obscure as this. Many many places and countries on the web, have got hardly a thing on them. Provinces of Kazakhstan which covers hundreds of thousands of sq km haven't many google hits either. Does this mean that because google doesn;t record them that anything in that land space isn't notable? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 20:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was the nominator but I was not the one who reverted your redirect. I agree re: relying on google but we have to find something that verified the significance of Thing X and google is often a good starting place. Of course there's also the question of whether Item X is encyclopedic, but that's another story. We'll see where this goes. Travellingcari (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, it was I who reverted the redirect (which I discovered when I went from this AfD to take a look at the article), as I don't think that redirecting the subject of an active AfD discussion is a good idea. With regard to the article, my opinion is keep per precedent for prominent topographic features (WP:GEOG). Deor (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is at present google seems to be finding a renowned tattoo artist of the same name, a rather shady looking gentleman rather than something encyclopedic about a mountain lol ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep but what was your source, Sir Blofeld? Of course it will do poorly on a google test but hopefully it appeared in a reliable source in the first place? Rigadoun (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was based on pure map observation. The map was created by http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/, which I believe is a notable source ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, although Roonui is in use, Ronui is apparently more common (at least historically). I've also changed the name from Mont to Mount as this is the English Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Geographical features such as this are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (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.