Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invincible Snowfields

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. - Mailer Diablo 11:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible Snowfields

edit
Invincible Snowfields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

small and obscure private business that does NOT meet the criteria of notability C5mjohn 19:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was convinced by the theme park comparison that many ski resorts are notable (thousands of visitors a year, coverage by local and national pubs, and fame to at least the local area[but I still don't like the argument "but i've heard of that place"]). So I will only focus on small, obscure, and unpopular (probably private) ski resorts. Like this one. C5mjohn 19:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wrote it. There aren't that many skifields in New Zealand - around 30. I think Wikipedia's interests are best served by having comprehensive coverage of *all* skifields, even if a couple of them are really quite small. We're a reference source, and it's really not that unlikely that someone will want to look up Invincible Snowfields, in the same way they would look up Snow Farm, Snow Park, or even Mount Dobson. Also, what is meant by "private" in this context? Isn't virtually every skifield everywhere (with very rare exceptions like Mount Donna Buang) run by a private entity of some kind, whether a club skifield or a bigger corporation like NZSKI? So consider: is the List of ski areas and resorts in New Zealand better off with *every single* skifield in NZ, or with 28 skifields with the notable exceptions of one or two that were deemed not notable? Stevage 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, incidentally, what is so "not notable" about it? Just so we're clear. Reply here, it makes more sense. Stevage 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need to determine notability. A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. Wikipedia:Notability C5mjohn 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deletion of the article would not remove it from the list (which ought to be comprehensive). --Limegreen 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, we would have a list of items with links to articles, except for this one item, which would just be plain text, possibly with a URL? That sounds less desirable than the current situation. Stevage 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably no URL. And there's plenty of precedent. Often they're left as red links, although it depends on whether something is likely to acquire an article or not (see e.g. List of towns in New Zealand (towns generally being notable enough so they're red linked), or a list like this University of Otago#Notable alumni and alumnae where there is both plain text and red links). --Limegreen 04:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It is listed on snow.co.nz[1], but not off their main list of skifields. It's certainly not very notable. I'm a keen SI skiier, and I'd never heard of it. - Limegreen 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The language in that snow.co.nz overview gives the impression that it was written by the business which makes it a non-independent source (basically an advertisement). C5mjohn 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like an oversight to me. It's been added to the list in the dropdown box at the very end, but the main list hasn't been updated yet. Well, that's how I read it, anyway. It's obviously a pretty new ski area. Stevage 04:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That really depends on how you define "independent". I don't doubt that the information was either copied from, or supplied by, the skifield. However, I don't see that as any different to a newspaper leaning heavily on a press release for an article. --Limegreen 04:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a unique ski field in the way it operates and is published in all good lists of New Zealand ski fields. It exists following the precedent of every other ski field in New Zealand. Many magazines have published articles and several famous skiers and borders have visited the field. Sources [2] [3] [4] [5]. This one particularly highlights the uniqueness of the field. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maelgwn (talk • contribs) 05:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand a bit. This is a notable subject. (1) Notability is preferably determined by the quality of the source(s), not the quantity. The Wikipedia:Notability guideline does not require multiple sources. An independent review in the SKImag means a lot in terms of notability precisely because this is such a small operation. (2) The entries in the various lists may have been written by or based on material from the skifield itself, but not all of them are ads. In fact inclusion in such lists & travel org catalogs also has fact/quality checking aspects. Example: if a skifield does not live up to its description, it would be removed from the list before long. Therefore they can be used to confirm the quality of the SKImag review. (3) If other editors would want to keep the article but (unlike me) feel that a policy or guideline stands in the way, a consensus to ignore the rule(s) may be in the cards. AvB ÷ talk 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for verifiability - "notability" is entirely subjective, as can be noted by this user-page-less nominator's stated plans to remove articles pretty much for the sake of it (struck - that was uncalled-for, I apologise - 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)). Is it verifiable? It certainly appears to be, per Maelgwn - I mean, are you saying it's fraudulent or doesn't exist? Is it a useful article? It completes our coverage. Does it serve the encyclopedia to delete it? Noting said here convinces me on that score. This nomination is fundamentally misguided - David Gerard 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If, as was asserted on the wikien-l mailing list, this is the only non-notable ski slope in its country, then perhaps it should be considered notable for this, kind of like the Interesting number paradox (except that, unlike integers, ski slopes are a finite set). *Dan T.* 10:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That thought had occurred to me too :) Stevage 03:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in some cases, it can be useful for Wikipedia to have a complete set of foo... like all of the popes, even really obscure ones from the fifth century; and all of the towns and villages, even ones with tiny populations. *Dan T.* 14:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think the SKImag is not an independent source? AvB ÷ talk 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS "Skiing -- www.skimag.com is a good place for skiers who are still deciding where to go." AvB ÷ talk 22:41, 12 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Invincible_Snowfields&oldid=1137934114"