Hordern Gap: Not all geographical features on maps of Antarctica are notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica .  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. Blofeld 11:36, 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. Blofeld 11:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nope.  WP:GEONATURAL .  Please stop telling me how to think and use "common sense".  JMWt ( talk ) 11:58, 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. Blofeld 12:33, 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 ] We all can Google.  Unless you actually have sources for us to discuss, then you cannot possibly ! vote that WP:GEONATURAL has been met.  JMWt ( talk ) 16:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let's start with Alberts 1995 , p. 343 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFAlberts1995 ( help ) 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 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStewart1990 ( help ) .  Uncle G ( talk ) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alberts, Fred G. (1995).  "Hordern Gap".  Geographic Names of the Antarctic (PDF) (2nd ed.).  National Science Foundation.  Stewart, John (1990).  "Hordern Gap".  Antarctica: An Encyclopedia .  Vol.  1.  McFarland.  ISBN 9780899505978 .  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 ] OK, but the entry I can read is a short-single-paragraph entry , not really SIGCOV.  I can't see the Stewart reference but if it's the same level of coverage I'm not seeing how WP:GEONATURAL is met.  FOARP ( talk ) 20:08, 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'm right because I was there at the time, and I've made the it's-encyclopaedic-because-it-is-in-other-encyclopaedias-and- constructing-a-both-generalist-and-specialist-encyclopaedia-is-what-we're-about argument at AFD.   ☺ 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.  Uncle G ( talk ) 00:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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 ] But the report itself is of an expedition, no?  It's a primary source JMWt ( talk ) 20:22, 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 ] Psst, Aymatth2 !

Discussion outcome: merge