Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ristfeuchthorn

: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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

=[[Ristfeuchthorn]]=

:{{la|Ristfeuchthorn}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Ristfeuchthorn}})

Not sure how notability for mountains is determined, but the article contains no information aside from its location. Not even useful as a stub. Remurmur (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

  • FWIW, the German article is somewhat longer. The google translation, however, is a bit dampening:

{{quote box|The Ristfeuchthorn is a mountain in Bavaria , with 1569 m altitude. It is a very well-developed summit, which is accessible from different sides. At the foot of the municipality lies Ristfeuchthorns Schneizlreuth and Weissbach gorge . In the spring after the snow melt are many waterfalls to see the fall there through the wall into the depths.}}

::But I'm disinclined to !vote delete; its a mountain - apparently one which is known for climbing[http://hc-cyberworks.de/pictures2008.htm] (not an RS, sorry) and has at least one waterfall. There must be more to it which we can eventually find documentation on. I prefer KEEPing it as a stub and hopefully improving it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep The German text is, as KC says, rather thin, but GBooks gives lots and lots of hits including some reasonably lengthy passages in travel guides. Mangoe (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I think I will have to take a look when I when I come back to Germany. Article could do with a picture or two. Agathoclea (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • keep don't delete geo articles expand them. you have 512 bavarian mountain articles to delete in addition. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are no notability guidelines for mountains because nobody ever envisaged that anyone editing an encyclopedia wouldn't know that mountains are encyclopedic topics. And how is this "not even useful as a stub"? It gives some basic information and can be built on from sources such as the ones found by the Google Books search linked above. That's precisely what stubs are useful for. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • How many mountains are there in the world? Thousands? Millions? Is every one necessarily notable? Geography seems to enjoy an incredibly low bar for notability on Wikipedia, with any hunk of rock with a name enjoying status as an article. I mean, if that's what we've decided is good enough for the project, fine. The nomination was mostly meant to test feelings on the matter.--Remurmur (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • From someone whose main editing interest appears to be video games the statement that "geography seems to enjoy an incredibly low bar for notability on Wikipedia" seems rather disingenuous. Geography has always been one of the core topics of encyclopedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason given in the nomination for deletion other than no information is better than a stub. If that were the case, we would need to delete about 90% of our articles which fall in the :Category:Stubs tree... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2011 (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.