Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taff y Bryn

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 merge to Convoy Range. I'm closing as a Merge as it is an ATD that seems to have the approval of the AFD nominator. This AFD is only concerned with this oarticular article, if an editor wants to have a larger discussion of a mass merge to Convoy Range or, on the other hand, a bundled AFD nomination, that will have to be done elsewhere. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taff y Bryn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A non-notable place with 0 citations or references to prove its existence or establish notability. Zekerocks11 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Antarctica. Skynxnex (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage. ProofRobust 22:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it would be worth the effort, but what about merging to Convoy Range? It would probably require merging all of the other pages that are linked there, but that might be a better format than giving each individual feature its own page, and collectively the range itself is definitely notable. Chagropango (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - The guidelines in this case are WP:GEOLAND which states Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.. The problem here is that a merge just of this mountain is not enough. There are 65 articles on features in the Convoy Range. I have looked at half of them and every one of them is a similar stub. They should all be treated together. A single page on the Convoy Range could become a very interesting article. A similar case are the Lakes of Grand Teton National Park where stubs on the individual lakes provide no benefit to the reader, but a single collated article allows them to be treated in one place, curating information for the interested reader. I am strongly in favour of developing the Convoy Range page in such a way, but it needs to be done for all 65 pages at once, and that will take more time than I have for this project. I would suggest that rather than going through the AfD lottery, a better approach would be to (1) develop the article; and (2) propose a merge of all 65 pages. It may be that some of the 65 would be sufficiently notable for a sub article, but this would establish a much better structure of parent and child articles for the interested reader. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to propose this to somebody, I don't really know who the right person would be, but it sounds to me like this would be a good idea. Zekerocks11 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information into Conroy Range. Should be enough room to merge all articles into it at a later date when somebody feels up to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete GNS is already problematic as a sole source, but in any case WP:GEOLAND isn't a "get out of WP:GNG free" card, and the fact an expedition assigned a name to every spot they felt need one doesn't mean that anyone else cared. The use of GNS as the sole source tends to imply that nobody else did care. There is plenty of precedent for deleting natural features due to lack of real notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2022 (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.