Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round Top (Oregon)

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, as it can be properly verified by any American or detailed enough world atlas. Although the "significance" of coverage could be debated, the verfibility is certain, and there are also no questions about the reliability of the source. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Round Top (Oregon)

Round Top (Oregon) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable mountain peak with no sources and an orphan. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - No WP:RS given to assert notability per WP:NOTE. Single external link does not provide significant coverage of the topic. Without more this is not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:GEOG, there it is. Jfire (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Probable keep, but may need work. The GNIS gives 127 summits by this name (excluding variants such as Little Round Top) in the US. We only seem to have about four. In Oregon alone there are seven summits by this name; in Jackson County, Oregon there are three, all of which are taller than the one in Washington Co., and the tallest is in Grant Co. This may be better off as a disambiguation page. --Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• WP:GEOG is not any sort of policy, just common outcomes. Nothing in WP:NOTE (an official guideline) says things on a map get a free pass. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Northern Oregon Coast Range. Katr67 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Its the common outcome--the invariable one, actually-- and the right one. All mountains and similar major geographic features always turn out to have references and be notable. DGG (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Citing common outcomes is nothing more than saying other stuff exists, and further the common outcomes even says: Precedents defined here should be used with caution — using this essay as the sole argument in an AFD is disputed at best, as there can be conflicts with extant policies or guidelines. WP:NOTE says nothing about maps being the sole arbiter of inclusion. And that makes since. If you look at a map you will see hundreds of things listed whether they be a short intermittent stream or a small gulch that nobody but a person looking at a map would ever know existed or had a name, and that means it is not worthy of note. That’s why independent WP:RS that provide substantial coverage are required. Maps meet parts 1 and 2, but do not provide substantial coverage in most instances. In the article at hand, a map will give you location and height, that’s about it. And that brings us to the other reason for substantial coverage, so the article is not simply two sentences. Substantial coverage allows for an article that is not a Stub, one that is useful to a wide variety of people. Substantial coverage in WP:RS allows for this to occur, and only articles that provide for this should be kept. Honestly, if we allow maps, why not allow census records to show notability for people, I’ve always wanted my own entry. Aboutmovies (talk) 02:56, 10 February 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.