Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria (Western Australia)

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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria (Western Australia)

Victoria (Western Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An entirely non-notable geographic feature. Mere inclusion on a list of geographic features does not make this "hill" notable in the absence of other reliable sources. The creation of this article appears to be linked to a move discussion at Talk:Victoria (Australia)#Requested move - Victoria (state). Mattinbgn (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Jackson, Western Australia is done. This article should be deleted per WP:GNG. I searched but can find nothing noteworthy of this landform other than it apparently exists. –Moondyne 14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That I could support - it's on my list of articles to create. One question - is it "Mount Jackson" or "Jackson"? (". (per 8006/96)". Western Australia Government Gazette. 3 March 1897. p. 1897:418. says "Jackson", as does Map 35/300 at SRO (which is online but I can't figure out how to link.) Orderinchaos 02:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory named it Mount Jackson on 17 August 1846. Speakman and Hall found gold there in Jan 1894. –Moondyne 06:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah cool, I'll link Jackson to Mount Jackson when I finally do the relevant land district article then. Thanks :) Orderinchaos 04:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That seems a bit of an extension from the convention re: populated place names and I am not sure I have seen it interpreted so widely. It does not seem like a great idea to me. Unlike populated places which by their nature will most likely be the subject of some reliable sources, I am not sure the same applies to every rise, waterhole or intermittent watercourse. I think it is very unlikely that every Deep Creek in Australia has enough sources to support an article. The creation of sub-stub articles based on nothing more that a link to the gazetted name should be discouraged in my opinion. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has a gazetted name. That's one third-party reliable source. No doubt I could go down to my local map shop and buy a 1:100000 topographic map upon which it appears. That's two third-party reliable sources. It meets the notability criteria already. I'm very confident I could find a line or two on its geology and topography in the appropriate publication of the Geological Survey of Western Australia, which is, after all, extremely thorough in its coverage. The Vegetation Survey of Western Australia is somewhat more patchy, but there may well be a publication that covers it. Hesperian 04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would argue that the map and the gazette only confirm the existence of a feature, but do not meet the "significant coverage" test to be considered as reliable sources for the purposes of WP:N. If all we can say about the feature is that it exists and this is its location, is this encyclopedic coverage. A blue link is a promise to a reader that when they follow the link they will find information of some value rather than a mere restatement of the name of the topic. This article does not meet that promise. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • From the gazette one obtains confirmation of its correct name (as I did here), and the precise location. From a map one learns of the spatial relationship it has with nearby features. In my view the promise of the blue link is satisfactorily fulfilled. I'm not sure there's any scope here for one of us to convince the other; de gustibus non est disputandum? Hesperian 08:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb is that if one other article (other than a list) links to it (or could feasably link to it) and its gazetted, its worth having. Verifiability doesn't mean article-worthy. –Moondyne 03:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be entirely non-notable. I can understand mountains being notable but hills are just too common. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Struggling to identify notability for this one - generally we don't have articles about things which sources confirm exist, but provide no other information. Orderinchaos 02:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (Disclosure: I created it). I think all species, all gazetted names should go into WP. Maybe someone can walk around and take a picture. Near by is Lake Barlee: On 25 March, Forrest climbed a hill in the area and saw the great extent of the lake. He then named it after Frederick Barlee, the Colonial Secretary of Western Australia. - That Forrest hill is unnamed in WP. But here we have one that has a name. Wouldn't it be interesting to know why this hill was named Victoria? By whom? Maybe one day one person can put a link from some other article linking to it as Moondyne suggested. Put a stub and let it grow. :-) TopoChecker (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Walk around and take a picture"? You do know where this is? It's not exactly down the end of Main Street to the left. I'm not sure that there's even drivable roads in that part of the country any more. (Edit: 118km from the nearest drivable road, just checked.) And how do we know "a hill" relates to *this* hill - seems WP:ORish to me (there are thousands of hills and that area isn't short of them). Orderinchaos 06:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice infos. You say lot of things I did not know about that region. I couldn't determine the shire, can you? I only found the region seems to be sparsely populated. Nearby are Shire of Yilgarn, Menzies, Sandstone. TopoChecker (talk) 06:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Lake Barlee wouldn't even be visible from the hill - it's also more than 100km away. The hill would be in the Shire of Yilgarn as it's near Mt Jackson which is well within. Orderinchaos 07:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO creation of locations and geographical features should really in the end be done by those who have knowledge of and working access to local sources from such as http://trove.nla.gov.au/ or http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/search~S2 - or as Hesperian has indicated paper versions of the material related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetation_Survey_of_Western_Australia or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_Survey_of_Western_Australia in hand and a good understanding of how http://www.ga.gov.au/map/names/ works - or to have actually experienced the location and have the evidence - like a photo - the fact the creator has indicated literally no knowledge of the locale should be sufficient to encourage further such adventurers of the computer screen to take care in creating stubs from names alone - rather than experiential context - and having agreed with both Hesperian and Mattinbgn's sentiments above - I remain in comment mode rather than delete or keep of this item SatuSuro 07:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@SatuSuro - Agreed. @Orderinchaos - I added the shire to the article. The Lake Barlee story was only to show that hills may have little stories attached to them. TopoChecker (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Hesperian. Five Years 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keeping this article sets a dangerous precedent. Aside from completely ignoring the "significant coverage" requirements of WP:GNG, it would pave the way for the creation of a massive number of stub articles, as happened when somebody went crazy not that long ago and started creating river stubs.[3] In Australia a hill is defined as "a small portion of the earth’s surface elevated above its surroundings, of lower altitude than a mountain. Generally its altitude is less than 300 metres above the surrounding country but this can change in areas of low relief." Geoscience Australia doesn't make it easy to calculate the number of hills in Australia, but the NSW Geographical Names Board says there are 4,217 in NSW. Extrapolating from this a figure of more than 40,000 is likely for the whole country. If "all places with a gazetted name are inherently notable" was indeed true, and I am yet to see evidence of this, we could be in for a lot of stub fixing, as happened with the rivers. Just a thought. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this view. Just from my work with the WA gazettes I can tell you not only that there'd be thousands in WA, but there's actually a few significant ones which either have some history or are used as key trigonometric points and hence have some real world significance. This one is clearly not one of them. I couldn't imagine an article on Waukolup Hill for example even though I could actually walk there (unlike this middle-of-nowhere example which seems to have been created to prove a point which it no longer even does successfully). Orderinchaos 17:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one must not forget that this article seems to have been created in a misguided effort to justify moving an article.[4] --AussieLegend (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What is "dangerous" about creating stubs, whether this one in particular or a "massive number"? We're not running out of space for new articles, and there's no policy against stubs, which are the way that most articles start out. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is, of course, a difference between a legitimate stub that contains useful information and a sub-stub—like this article—that merely restates the title and the location. This article does not even give an elevation! Also, there is little likelihood that this sub-stub will ever be able to be expanded because of a lack of reliable sources containing significant coverage of the article. If we accept the principle that the creation of these sub-stubs is OK (or even should be encouraged) then we weaken the concept that encyclopaedic articles should actually contain encyclopaedic information. Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 33#River stubs is an earlier discussion about how these sort of articles detract from Wikipedia. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you mean I think the article contains no encyclopedic information of any value and detracts from the project, then yes, I guess that definition of IDONTLIKEIT sums up my argument. The creation of articles of this nature is a blight on the project and does not aid the project in any way, shape or form. It doesn't meet GNG either (a map or gazettal do not meet the "significant coverage" test IMO) and has little or no prospect of doing so in the future. As I said above, a blue link is a promise to a reader and this article breaks that promise. It is a poor article, created for WP:POINTy reasons and is beyond redemption. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is dangerous is that by ignoring the requirements of WP:GNG, we are allowing the creation of articles about non-notable entities. If we do that, I could write an article about the mound of dirt in the paddock behind my house because technically, it fits the definition of a hill. --06:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The coverage is trivial - it points to its existence and location, and nothing more. On that basis even my street would be notable as it's printed in a street directory and listed in its index. Orderinchaos 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read WP:GNG again. It says "sources", not source, and clarifies this by stating "Multiple sources are generally expected". It also says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and mere mention of its location is trivial. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. No original research is needed to extract the coordinates from the Gazetteer. From other reliable sources, one may obtain the approximate elevation. Wikipedia use guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability to keep from having to reinvent the wheel in every AfD.—Stepheng3 (talk) 06:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A map or a gazettal on its own cannot be considered "significant coverage" by any definition of the term "significant" that means anything at all. "From other reliable sources, one may obtain the approximate elevation" Where is it? A vague wave towards some unidentified source does not count as "significant coverage" either. A mere assertion that a source exists does not cut it. I agree, WP:N is designed to prevent having the same discussions time after time, and this article and topic do not meet WP:N. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elevation added, source cited. —Stepheng3 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source says it's an estimation though, so I'm not sure whether it's classed as reliable. A topo map I have here says that the height is 436m. Nearby Wayabeen Hill is 450m, Yeelah Hill is 466m, Curragibbin Hill is just over 500m and Yeeding Hill is 556m. All of these are AMSL, not above the sourrounding land which averages around 400m AMSL. What we have here is barely a hill at all, poking only 36m above the surrounding land. Doesn't seem notable does it? --AussieLegend (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability resides in the sources, not in the actual height of the feature in question.—Stepheng3 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources provided are considered significant coverage for the purposes of GNG, then surely every street in Melbourne (the subject of several different street directories, both printed and online) now meets the same standard. To consider a map as a reliable source for the purpose of meeting GNG makes a mockery of the whole guideline. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage is trivial - it points to its existence and location, and nothing more. On that basis even my street would be notable as it's printed in a street directory and listed in its index. On consideration, there's actually *more* printed documentary material about my street, as there is some discussion about its construction in a file at the State Records Office. Victoria Hill is, as far as I can tell, not mentioned in a single SRO file (a search there turns up nothing, suggesting it wasn't used for a trig point or any other useful purpose). Orderinchaos 06:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How does it meet the "significant coverage" requirement? Coverage is not simply listing of the details. If it were, you could justify writing an article on most houses that are for sale since they are usually listed in multiple sources. My business would become notable because it is listed in multiple sources, all of which are reliable. The answer to my question is, it doesn't. The subject is not notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman argument. House listings are generally created (by sellers or their agents) for the purpose of selling the house and are therefore not independent of the subject.—Stepheng3 (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. In Australia, listings are created by the agent but are not restricted to listing by that agent. House sales are often listed by multiple agents, all independent of the source, especially online. That said, you response doesn't explain how this hill meets the "significant coverage" requirement. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy, hence the "!". The de facto consensus is that all places are notable. A similar case is WP:SCHOOLS, where the de facto consensus is that "high schools are notable". walk victor falk talk 22:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the point that AL is trying to make - there is no policy, it is merely a common outcome. Your schools example is the major reason I am concerned about articles like this that rely on the notion of "inherent notability". The "all schools are notable" argument has grown from a statement that "most High Schools are found to be notable" to "all High Schools are notable" to now "All schools, be they High Schools, Elementary or Primary Schools, Special Schools etc. are notable". What was a common sense convention has been stretched beyond all recognition. This case is the same and the same argument could be used for the every little rise marked on a map. The "inherent notability" argument is circular - places are deemed as notable because they are kept at AfD discussions. Why are they kept at AfD discussions? Because they are deemed notable!! We should rely on WP:GNG - significant coverage in reliable sources - rather than subjective views of "inherent notability". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Matt's points above. Also worth noting WP:NOTINHERITED. "All X are notable" is a fallacious argument, we should be arguing on the merits of the individual feature. AussieLegend's identified some interesting points to this end in his arguments above - it's 36m above local landscape, so even if one staggered out the 112km along unformed tracks in a semi-desert area to take a photograph of this thing, one might actually have a little trouble finding it (and that's assuming one wasn't seeing mirages by that point). Orderinchaos 01:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This place is essentially not notable. I follow the arguments of Orderinchaos who knows WA well. It was also created to make a point. Incidentally if these locations are compared with Schools, the argument is not that all schools are notable; it is that all High Schools are notable. Primary and Middle Schools are, as far as I can see, still being deleted. If this hill is to be compared with schools, it is a child care centre. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not all gazetted places are notable.--Grahame (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete wherever the line goes, Victoria Hill is on the wrong side of it. walk victor falk talk 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a bet each way :-) cygnis insignis 15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is probably a significant population there, possibly more than one, but they are not considered in the discussion above. I have linked to many named locations in this region, hills and outcrops are especially notable in this state, beyond the political, economic or other anthropocentric views they turn out to be quite remarkable and this would be noted. That this 'island' is likely to be unique would not be unusual in WA, it would be notable if it wasn't, and reference to named features of the landscape can be of crucial importance. My links often relate to nearby location, 'nearby' being within 100 km! The article is functioning and ready to be built upon when needed. cygnis insignis 15:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A significant population of what? Kangaroos? It's a 36m hill at the bottom of some larger, but still non-notable hills. There's no population at the hill, although Google Earth shows a group of burnt out and abandoned structures 1.5km to the south-west. The "hill" itself doesn't even show up on Google Earth and the topo maps don't even show contours. It's just a spot height. Why would it or any other similar place be WP:N-notable? --AussieLegend (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victoria_(Western_Australia)