Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Antarctic two-thousanders

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 redirect to East Antarctica Ranges. MBisanz ^talk 17:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East Antarctic two-thousanders

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

Totally arbitrary division. Why is 2000+ a notable division and not say, 3000, 4000 or any other x000 number? Why just those on the east, and not the west, which is currently redlinked? Also, there are lots of other, better organized and sourced lists of Antarctica's mountains. Prod declined for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The convention to number mountains by the thousands (apparently for mountaineering purposes, as hinted in the article) seem to originate in the German Wikipedia. See de:Zweitausender, and the deletion discussion linked at that articles talk page; note also that Portal:Mountains/Other mountains has definite German influence. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think that the criterion for inclusion is itself a problem. All such lists have to have criteria for inclusion which are in some sense arbitrary, and if it had originated in the US would no doubt be feet rather than metres. List of Munros is an example in Wikipedia of a very notable set based on such an arbitrary criterion. The question for WP is whether 2000 metres is the right figure (and presumably few people would travel to Antarctica just to bag 1000 metre peaks and which could be said to be much less notable). My impression from a quick look on Google is that the 2000 metre point is quite widely used internationally but input from those with an experience in this would be useful. --AJHingston (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't Munroe a well-established term/grouping? I mean, it even has a name. So no, that doesn't seem arbitrary. If 2000m is similarly popularly used, then the list might make sense, but if the creator just decided on a whim to use 2km as the cutoff, then I would support deleting. HaugenErik (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a reference could be found for "These peaks are collectively referred to as the East Antarctic two-thousanders", I would support keeping it as it would show that the term is used. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In response to both of you — even though there is an article on Two-thousander and several other thousanders, I found no proof whatsoever that "X thousander" is a widely used term for mountains. "Two-thousander" + "mountain" gave me only 200 unique Google hits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that "X thousander" was a widely used term, but that "East Antarctic two-thousanders" might be a term that is applied to the peaks in this article, just as Munros is a term applied to Scottish peaks. That is what the article is asserting, but there is no source. If that term is used in a reliable source, then I think the article is worth keeping. I agree with you about "X thousander" on its own. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- See Two-thousander, three-thousander, four-thousander, and eight-thousander. I prodded the first three, and AFDed the last one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agreed with you at first glance on "X thousander", clearly others do not. Two-thousander has been denied prod with some sources given and eight-thousander looks like a snow keep at AfD so I have denied prod on the other two. Let us not be hasty and let us wait until mountaineers tell us what is in their guide books which are reliable sources in most cases and not generally available on the web. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This article did not come from German Wikipedia and the outcome of the delete discussion at de:Zweitausender was keep. Mountaineers do commonly use the term "X-thousander", both in English and other languages, Reinhold Messner's book is even called All 14 eight-thousanders. The Nuttalls, after whom the Nuttalls in Britain are named, also use the term (albeit referring to feet, a point I have added in the article on two-thousanders). Even a cursory review of Google books reveals dozens of mountaineering sources for "x-thousanders". So the terminology is widespread and what is needed are some references to such usage (I have now added them to some of the articles). Whether the specific title of "East Antarctic two-thousanders" is valid is a fair question, but I see it as no different from "Rivers of Lower Saxony"; you may not find the exact phrase in the literature, but the topic is valid. Certainly the arguments presented here are not grounds for deletion at this stage, IMHO. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with Rivers of Lower Saxony seems to me a good one. With geographical features we do not require that they be independently notable under GNG, and grouping by type and location is routine. Both river and Lower Saxony are in a sense arbitrary (how big does a watercourse have to be to qualify for example?). I do not think that we can disqualify this list simply on the basis that others have not attempted to do it before, but only if the criteria for inclusion are poorly chosen because the wider consensus is that some other height is the recognised cut off for similar lists or that East Antarctica were not a commonly accepted geographical area. --AJHingston (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the authoritative international body, the UIAA, has a official list of Alpine four-thousanders, see The 4000ers of the Alps - Official UIAA List. The UIAA also appear to have sponsored a list of Pyrenean three-thousanders. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did I find absolutely zero pages using "X thousanders" as a term for mountains of a certain height? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20

22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know. Perhaps you made a typo. At the "find sources" link you provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eight-thousander I see "about 21,000" hits and in the plural "about 73,800". For the present AfD only "about 14,800" but the East Antarctic qualification is in there too. I'm certainly not suggesting all these are true hits or meet notability criteria. Thincat (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its an arbitrary list that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, better in a climbing guide. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing much about two-thousanders (and then just as adjectives), much less East Antarctican ones. Two, four, six, eight. Who do I appreciate? Just the gold standard eight-thousanders. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Original Research --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now or at least rename to List of mountains of Antarctica (currently a dubious totum pro parte redirect to ultras of Antartica) and expand or rename to List of mountains of East Antarctica. We shouldn't lose the information; the objection seems to be the title. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider how to name it. A list divided by height seems eminently reasonable, and I think there has been enough evidence to show that this is the general naming term used. Into how many groups in should be divided needs discussion, and probably a =n appropriate wikiproject would be a better place for that than here. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps WikiProject Mountains. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also fourteener. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is currently not possible to create a complete and correct list of two-thousanders for this region, due to lack of data. Most of the altitude measurements were performed 50-80 years ago with low accuracy. I've added a new entry to the list - the highest mountain in Queen Maud Land, Jøkulkyrkja, jumps straight to the sixth place on the list. BTW, East Antarctica Ranges is an almost identical article. - 4ing (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did not know about East Antarctica Ranges. That is now the decider for me. Since that exists, we do not need this article, where the inclusion criteria are more problematic. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to East Antarctica Ranges. No point in two copies of the same article. Funny ^Pika 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I commented above and subsequently saw that East Antarctica Ranges was merged here about a year ago leaving a redirect. I reverted the merge[1] and commented at Talk:East Antarctica Ranges. The "thousander" difficulties obviously did not apply at the other article and I was concerned that any deletion here would lead to the redirect and its history being WP:CSD#G8 deleted without discussion. Because of my involvement I shall not give an opinion here. Thincat (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I'm considereing nominating East Antarctica Ranges for deletion. The main source to the list, peakbagger.com, describes the term East Antarctica Ranges a "bogus mountain grouping for this site". Further, it says "Sub-peaks are excluded from this list", without stating any cut-off in prominence. The list is not complete, since only summits in the PBC Database are included. The PBC Database might fail Wikipedia:RELIABLE, and the availablility of accurate data for this region is very limited, making the list arbitrary. - 4ing (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Antarctica Ranges, this articles is nearly identical. --Dede2008 (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is this being held over instead of closed? Carrite (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to East Antarctica Ranges having reconciled the differences between the 2 lists as far as possible to reduce errors and omissions. Logic: they are almost identical. East Antarctica Ranges have additional info (on prominence) and it avoids the argument above for now. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've now created the article List of mountains in Queen Maud Land. Currently, it lists approximately 100 two-thousanders, and and at least 100 more can be found in the sources. No need to keep this article, which lists the 29 known peaks whose summits reach or exceed 2000 meters above sea level. - 4ing (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2013 (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.