Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Everest and English Channel

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest and English Channel

This article is a perfect example of synthesis, which is a form of original research. It's about the heretofore little-known adventure feat of both summiting Mount Everest and swimming the English Channel, going so far as to give it a newly minted neologism, "Peak and Pond". There are no ghits for this phrase in combination with Everest and Channel that were not written by the author of this page on Wikipedia. There are no relevant hits for any combination of "Everest" and "Channel" that I could come up with--relevant in the sense that this is a recognizable adventure challenge, like the Seven Summits. There are no sources referenced on the page that mention the two activities together. The article uses the sources to make arguments and draw original conclusions, like the paragraph highlighted in this diff:[1]

The author of this article, who has climbed to the summit of Everest, is planning to swim the English Channel this summer. I wish him luck. Darkspots (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a synthesis/OR/neologism (not sure). JJL (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While the completion of these twin feats is remarkable, there is nothing in the literature to indicate that the achievement of both challenges is considered notable in the Wikipedia sense. It's a pity that the three successful challengers were not given more lasting media coverage for their feat, as such references would provide grist for this article. WWGB (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis and OR. Redfarmer (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate WWGB's comments. The 3 adventurers who did this were not American and completed their efforts prior to the time when newspapers we digitized (as they are today). They were widely covered, but only in local newspapers that are not on the internet now, or are in subscription databases like LexisNexis. I will have some news mentions shortly. Please postpone deletion till then.Nealmueller (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WWGB's comments, but only up to a point. Such coverage would have to show that this is a recognizable adventure goal, not just two adventure feats that these three men happened to do. As an absurd example of what I mean, I could find a guy that had summited K2 without oxygen, and also crossed the Pacific in a hot-air balloon, and call it The Gas-Free Challenge, and say he was the first person to accomplish the feat. Unless there was news coverage saying, "Adventurer completes Gas-Free Challenge!", how do we know that this challenge is generally recognized, and that this isn't simply just a case of a man tackling two different incredible feats, that need to be regarded in the context of a lifetime filled with other, equally daring escapades? Wouldn't we be better off with a biography of the individual, documenting all his accomplishments?

AfD runs for five days, so you've got plenty of time to put the sources in. Darkspots (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's damn impressive, and a great personal mission to set oneself - whoever achieves this should be proud. But it's just not a noted challenge. And the problem is, a challenge has to be noted to be a competitive challenge: if no-one else knows of it, you're not competing with anyone. It's just something you've done. Thus it screams vanity article, as anyone who's done two diverse yet difficult things could stick a name on it and make a page of it. My advice to the creators of the article is to approach some 'health and fitness'/'extreme sports' magazines, get it into the wider world that way. If the challenge got wider recognition it could be a good article, but wikipedia just isn't the place for launching new ideas (per WP:OR, WP:NOT: Crystal Ball). Good luck to both in the swim. The Zig (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (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.