Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Froebe hill

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. KTC (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Froebe hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Hill does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. I understand that the associated helicopter qualifies as notable, but that notability does not transfer to the surrounding hillsides and fields without references to demonstrate this. Also, it appears the article creator has an undisclosed WP:COI. KDS4444^Talk 07:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  09:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG per nom. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To amplify my reasons for my vote: Given the creator's apparent COI as a family member, together with the minimal content and lack of any citations or other criteria meeting GNG, I don't see any justification for keeping this article. It doesn't quite meet WP:A3, WP:G11 or WP:A7 at WP:SPEEDY but it is pretty close. No voices have been raised for keeping it. Please, no more relistings, just do the decent thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Graham (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Its coordinates and height (353m, making it the 154th highest peak in Manitoba, 11,098th highest in Canada) are known, but the only other information searches turned up was the origin of the name. I don't feel that is enough to pass WP:GEOLAND. Even if it does, WP:NOPAGE applies. If there's a sense that this information must be preserved, redirect to Spruce Woods Provincial Park. (According to the coordinates in the article, it lies just within the eastern boundary of the park, although the park website doesn't mention it). Worldbruce (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2015 (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.