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. But for the record, Wikipedia:Gazetteer does not supersede the WP:GNG. czar 06:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Gniewek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNIS ventures to another continent, this time with a mountain which gets only 464 GHits (plus two more for "Mt. "Gniewek"), the only seemingly substantive one being, apparently, a verbatim copy of our article. There's no claim to notability except in the word "conspicuous", but other than in its oroginal naming it appears to have drawn no other interest, so I'm not seeing the notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Not much more, but enough. Also, why would you assume that the source copied the Wikipedia article rather than the other way round? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm increasingly having trouble with appeals to WP:GEOLAND as a means of avoiding satisfying WP:GNG, which latter standard I do not see this entry meeting, as I do not see the bare description in GNIS as "significant coverage". And I do apologize: the other reference is (besides the NZ Gazette entry, which is no more than an entry in a list) is, I see upon closer examination, a verbatim copy of the GNIS entry rather than of our article, but in any case to doesn't increase the coverage of this peak. Mangoe (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia:Gazetteer is only an essay, it seems to be the de facto standard and routinely supercedes GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yup, meets the criteria of WP:GEOLAND. WP:GNG is not the be all and end all, as WP:SNG quite clearly says (although often ignored or sneered at by those who favour deletion). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Clarityfiend and Necrothesp. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:07, 21 July 2021 (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.