Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willow Creek Pass (Montana)

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 no consensus to delete. I've considered the citations of policy, guidelines and outcome below, but as a verifiable, gazetted geographic feature and the lack of consensus on the notability of such an entity, I've chosen to err on the side of keep. Canley (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Willow Creek Pass (Montana)

Willow Creek Pass (Montana) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete nothing to indicate that this mountain pass is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. All mountain passes are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What guideline or policy says that? AFAIK, mountain passes are not automatically notable. TJ Spyke 01:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sure it's an Essay, not a guideline, but WP:OUTCOMES can't be completely ignored. It's the consensus of many. many AFD's and carries weight.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • How about citing something that actually has any official say? Also, OUTCOMES doesn't mention mountain passes (only mountains themselves). TJ Spyke 03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I cited the essay that i felt applied to the situation and the closing admin can decide if my application is correct or not. However I thank you for the great concern you expressed as to how exactly I form my AFD comments.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I apoligize if I sounded rude. I am just sick of seeing people (mainly in school related AFD's) cite that essay as their only argument. OUTCOMES is just a statement (an unsourced statment BTW) of how AFD's usually end. So it's basically saying "similar articles are usually kept, so this one should too" without citing what guideline or policies support keeping the article. TJ Spyke 03:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
          • No prob, however i think the message is articles of a certain type usually can be sourced, even if they aren't sourced as yet. I googled and it seems widely verifiable.

[1][2][3][4][5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No sources, no claims of notability. So it FAILS WP:N and WP:V (a guideline and a policy, both of which carry far more weight than a editors personal opinion and a essay). Also, this article has been a 1 sentence stub since it's creation in November 2006, so its had more than enough time. TJ Spyke 03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is yet another example of the misunderstanding of WP:V. And article doesn't fail WP:V if it is currently unverified, but only if it is unverifiable. WP:V is a reason to delete an article if absolutely nothing can be verified, not simply because an editor doesn't see sources placed in the article (see also WP:OSTRICH). Ironically, in this case, the content is verified. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per TJ Spyke. Tavix (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See response to TJ Spyke. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as sufficiently sourced (I've expanded with GNIS data) and by precedent of plenty of AFDs in OUTCOMES, despite what some seem to think. In light of precedent that major geographical features are considered notable, a claim that this is one is surely a sufficient assertion to qualify it if we can prove that it is what it's claimed — and the data confirms it. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It still fails WP:N though, the article doesn't even assert why it is notable, yet alone prove it. Also, again, OUTCOMES doesn't mention mountain passes. TJ Spyke 03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No offense, but if you're refering to Outcomes it says: Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable and i'd suggest a pass is like one of these features. Have you checked out any of my sources above? there are more if you google yourself. I'd suggest notability can be satisfied by choosing the right sources from the list.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't consider a mountain pass as a major geographical feature. It doesn't matter though since OUTCOMES has no bearing on whether an article is kept or deleted since it's just an essay (meaning it's just the opinions of the editors who wrote it). TJ Spyke 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • By the way, Cube, all of your links except the last (and perhaps the third, but not likely) refer to a similar pass in Colorado. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
          • My bad on the links and appologize to all (but stand by the principal). Been up for too many hours to dig up good links i guess. I'll bow out till I get some sleep.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Please note that this link that Cube already gave is about the right place. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep It is a stub. Stubs are present in WP until someone expands the stub into an article. Don't be so impatient. Hmains (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The article has been a stub since November 2006, 13 1/2 months is WAY too long. Hell, until this AFD was started it was just 1 sentence (and unsourced on top of that). TJ Spyke 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No, it isn't. It's short compared to some. Indeed, we still have long lists of articles that we don't even have at all, yet, after several years. Uncle G (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Just because there are articles that have been stubs even longer doesn't mean that this one was OK (it just means the others are even worse, it's like saying one pile of dung doesn't smell that bad because there are large piles of dung nearby). TJ Spyke 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Eastmain and especially Nyttend; natural landmarks are by and large inherently notable. GlassCobra 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Only some are, not all. TJ Spyke 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Glass. — BQZip01 — talk 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So far NONE of the people voting keep have cited any guidlines or policies that support keeping this article, only an essay (which is just an opinion piece). I hope the closing admin keeps this is mind. TJ Spyke 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • False. Hmains paraphrased our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which is that we don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion, and our Wikipedia:Editing policy, which is that we don't require this expansion to happen immediately. Uncle G (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It has not been established that this mountain pass is notable, so not indiciation that it has room for expansion. WP:Editing policy just says that some users like to expand article stubs, it doesn't say expansion doesn't have to happen immediatly. Besides, from November 2006 until today when it was nominated for deletion, it was a unsourced 1 sentence stub. 1 month would be more than enough time to let people expand it, yet alone 13 1/2 months. It still fails WP:N TJ Spyke 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Ahem! Editing policy clearly says that perfection is not required and explains that. Read it again. As I said, xyr argument is firmly based in policy, whereas yours is not. You have to show that there's no scope for expansion. You have to do the work of looking for sources that deletion policy, as well as the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and indeed Wikipedia:Notability (the very page that you are waving around), say it is necessary to do. (You've shown no indication that you actually have.) It's not something that is demonstrated automatically by the passage of some length of time. Please read and familiarize yourself with our editing and deletion policies. It is clear that you do not understand them. This has been policy with respect to stubs since the beginning of this project, and is policy now. The closing administrator, as I, will be familiar with project policy. Other editors' arguments are grounded in it. Yours are not. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Believe what you want. I still see no evidence that the pass is notable (and that is the job of those saying it is notable to proove it). TJ Spyke 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real places are encyclopedic subjects and geography is an important subject for an encyclopedia to cover. Quale (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a stub, but stubs aren't inherently bad. Lankiveil (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Keep: Genuine geographical site; coordinates (longitude/latitude) provided. May stay a stub, but someone might be able to expand. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't exist, but there is nothing to proove that it's notable. Also, people have had 13 1/2 months to expand it beyond a stub. If this AFD hadn't started, it still would be a 1 sentence unsourced stub (like it had been since being created, here is what the article looked like since its creation in July 2006 until this AFD started yesterday: [6]). TJ Spyke 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete There is nothing presented which makes this pass remotely notable. I have a creek in my backyard, should I start an article about that? its a geographical feature, I can provide coordinates. Unless someone can demonstrate some notability and coverage of this feature it has no place on wikipedia, not a single person has demonstrated a valid reason why this should be kept, and "not deleting a stub" isn't a valid reason. If I make a stub about my neighbour do we keep it even if we can't find anything about him? I don't think so.--Crossmr (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It is a valid reason per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. The reason for deleting stubs, as explained in the policy, is that it is impossible to expand them. You have failed to even argue that case. You've argued it for your neighbour, but your neighbour isn't the subject of this article. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:N. That the place exists is not in doubt, but the article does not assert or prove notability. Wikipedia:Places of local interest is a readable essay, Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook is official policy. Both say the same thing - a place, regardless of whether it's a mountain pass, a stream, a tower, a cinema, etc, needs to be notable for inclusion. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 18:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Major geographical features such as this are inherently notable. The sources verify the pass (contrary to users claims above, it easily passes WP:V. --Oakshade (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that all geographical features are notable? AFAIK, the only ones considered inherently notable are settlements (towns, cities, villages, etc.) Things like mountain passes are not inherently notable. TJ Spyke 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:CONSENSUS has decided that geographical features such as mountains, lakes, etc. are notable, as indicated by WP:OUTCOMES. There is no evidence that consensus is changing, in this AfD or elsewhere. --Oakshade (talk) 01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete while it exists, I don't see why this mountain pass is notable, fails WP:N, and sourcing is a concern, as the current sources show that the mountain pass exists, but no other info likely can be found about it. For the WP:OUTCOMES commenters, consensus can change. Secret account 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment as I've already put up a "strong keep": please note that there's plenty of potential for expansion (we could easily get a picture, for example), and a local editor could likely find local history and other references. Moreover, note that we now have three independent sources, at least two of which (USGS and the Atlas & Gazatteer) are quite reliable. What more do you want for notability? Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
USGS and Atlats just prove that the pass exists, not that it's notable. TJ Spyke 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What's missing? Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The key word is significant coverage, the sources right now currently prove that the place exists and no other info, there needs to be more sources that cover the subject in detail, google books is a good place to check. Secret account 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Even aside from the broad consensus seen in OUTCOMES, we already had two references that address the subject directly in detail, and I've now added a third. I'm still not clear: what do you want? Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability guidelines can be tricky to understand sometimes. What you have put on the article are not considered to be "significant" references. All four refs (3 sources) as of time of writing merely mention the name of the pass with bare facts of height and location. None of the refs actually talks about the pass or gives any indication that the pass is significant. It's worth reading WP:N as that explains the need for significant references. The relevant sentences are: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Followed later by an explanation of "significant": ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Ref: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial." The Common Outcomes page is an indicator of how consensus has gone in previous AfDs, however as it says: "For rules, guidelines, and consensus on a more detailed basis, visit the various notability policy pages". And for the section on geography the wording in Common Outcomes is "Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable". The word "major" is important here. As is the over-riding need for significant references. I add all this information to help those who are struggling in this AfD to understand the situation we have reached on Wikipedia as regards notability for such topics. I hope that helps. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps some of us would disagree on the precise situation we have reached on Wikipedia :-) There's been widespread consensus to keep articles like this, as seen in OUTCOMES; if you want to delete this, you'd likely do better to propose a policy page and try to get it accepted. Nyttend (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Outcomes makes no reference to mountain passes, nor to other non significant places whose names appear on maps. I felt I was being helpful in explaining the situation as it stands, and providing the sentences which explain how to judge notability. You can make of the evidence and guidelines what you wish, but it's inappropriate to make false claims about what appears in Outcomes. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course it says nothing about mountain passes per se, but we don't have a 10th Amendment or an RPW saying that nothing not explicitly mentioned in Outcomes isn't included — its "etc." naturally signifies that the reader is to expect more than just lakes, rivers, and mountains. Of course, not everything in the world is suitable for an encyclopedia, even if well-referenced (we don't have articles on most individual words, even though scores of dictionaries can testify to them), but this is neither a non-encyclopedic topic nor an inherently POV topic, such as an article on Sinfulness of people who hate Christianity would be. Therefore, what's to keep it from remaining, if it has all these sources to prove its notability? Nyttend (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - a good stub, as per above. --Iamunknown 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep...If a geographical location is on a map and the map is reliable (as are USGS quads), then it is notable. If we start deleting articles about map locations then we will set a bad precident for numerous stub articles we have about all sorts of geographical places that are oftentimes difficult to reference aside from a map reference.--MONGO 15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Names on maps are not the criteria for notability. My street appears on many maps, but wouldn't pass the notability criteria. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep OUTCOMES is not the authority except as the summary of what we do at WP. What we do at WP is keep named natural geographic features whose existence can be demonstrated on reliable sources, and this is so well established that those saying delete are probably really arguing for a change in that practice--as they have every right to do. I think the discussion above shows the consensus is very much to keep the practice. I think that wise, rather than set us to arguing here over every feature individually. I wish we had similarly firm consensus in many other fields. DGG (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a lot of respect for your experience in these fields, so I am surprised when you say that you feel a mention of a place on map is sufficient reason for inclusion on WP when the spirit and word of the guidelines and policies we have arrived at appear to suggest otherwise. The WP:Not policy page has the helpful and often quoted sentence: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Our guidelines on how to judge and interpret what is suitable do indicate that notability needs to be asserted by a source we consider reliable. That a map or directory simply lists that a thing exists does not appear to me to assert notability by our guidelines. As there are a number of people here, however, who do feel that if a geological feature is named on a map it should have an article, perhaps it would be worth establishing and making it clear on a guideline if a feature named on a map is or is not reason enough to warrant an article entry on WP. There are plenty of hills, streams, woods, footpaths, quarries etc on the very reliable Ordnance Survey maps of the UK which would ensure that hundreds of thousands of articles can be added just for Britain. I don't think that would be wise, and my contribution to the discussion would be that we make it clear on WP:Not that Wikipedia is NOT a map, and should not simply list geographical features which are found on other maps. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is that we don't know if it is a reasonably prominent geographic feature because nobody has said it is, and it would mean that "original research is needed to extract the content" from the maps and directory information to work that out. For this pass to be included all we need is a reliable source saying there is something prominent or significant about the place - but we don't have that source, currently all we have is sources saying that the place exists. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Geographical features like this are considered by consensus of encyclopedic value. They might not be to you (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but they are to scientists, geographers, geologists, scholars or any other person interested in this topic. These articles make this online encyclopedia stronger, not weaker. That is what is so good about Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. As it's billed as "The sum of all knowledge," there is unlimited bandwidth for encyclopedic information.--Oakshade (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is that we do not include "information" - we focus on the "knowledge". Because consensus on Wikipedia is that we are an encyclopedia which reflects the sum of human knowledge, and the judgement of what is worthwhile knowledge are independent sources. If there is a scientist, geographer, geologist, or scholar that you can find who thinks this pass is worthwhile to comment on, then direct us to that comment. We use the consensual Wiki guidelines to judge whether to include an article on Wiki. It is not up me - it is up to our consensual guidelines. We have these discussions on AfD to see if an article is meeting guidelines. An AfD is not a popularity poll in which people start voting for which flavour ice cream they want or don't want on Wiki. It's worth looking at WP:AfD - these lines are helpful: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out references, and diffuse the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles." It's also worth looking at Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#Reasons_for_deletion, especially the lines "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (as in Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory) and "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". So we have a deep and wide and long-standing consensus that for an item to have an article on Wikpedia there must be a bit more than a mention on a map and a desire by a handful of people in an AfD that Wikipedia should also become an atlas.
What might be worthwhile is that however the closing admin closes this as a keep or delete, there should be a Wikipedia:Deletion review to reinforce the decision - and if the review supports the keep or delete that we make explicit in guidelines that geological features mentioned on maps or directories with no other supporting sources or materials are or are not notable. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles about geographical features such as this are knowledge. You disagree, granted. To simply use the iron clad "must be the primary in depth subject of secondary sources" on all topics is actually against WP:CONSENSUS. Even the core stipulation of Wikipedia:NOTABILITY provides that it "be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Consensus has in fact found time and time again that geographical features like this, provided they are verifiable as this topic clearly is, are some of those common sense exceptions and there is no evidence, either in this AfD nor anywhere else, that consensus has changed. --Oakshade (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sourced, and appears notable like every other real place in the world should be.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:28, 14 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.