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. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Montes[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NGEO. WP:NASTRO Existence does not confer notability.~~ I have no objections to a Geography of Pluto article but having an article for each recently discovered geographic feature is absurd unless they have some other notability. Savonneux cites. (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic features of astronomical objects is not covered in WP:GEO, my bad. My reasoning still stands per "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works."--Savonneux (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hillary Montes is the second tallest mountain range on the dwarf planet, it is certainly notable. It is essentially the Alps of Pluto, with Norgay Montes being the Himalayas. The others can be merged, but Hillary and Norgay Montes are notable enough. DN-boards1 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes - Hillary Montes is a significant geographical feature on the dwarf planet Pluto and is notable per WP:GEOLAND => Named natural features are often notable ... - also - the article is well-sourced - also - *entirely* agree with the comments presented above by DN-boards1 - hope this helps in some way - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BRIEF Followup => Besides many refs ("NASA", "SciNews" and others) already in the article, more relevant references (see below)^[1]^[2]^[3] were added to the "Hillary Montes" and "Norgay Montes" articles - including refs from "The Christian Science Monitor", "PBS NewsHour" & "Space.com", July 2015 - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kremer, Ken (27 July 2015). "Breathtaking Pluto images reveal icy dwarf planet's plains and mountains (+video) - NASA's New Horizons space probe has sent back its highest-resolution images yet of Pluto and its moons". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ Akpan, Nsikan (18 July 2015). "Nepal gets a piece of Pluto plus four new surprises from New Horizons". PBS NewsHour. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ Wall, Mike (21 July 2015). "Second Mountain Range Rises from Pluto's 'Heart' (Photo)". Space.com. Retrieved 18 August 2015.

Keep - Significant mountain range of Pluto. Deleting the article does not improve the encyclopedia. Jus da fax 04:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two independent popular-press references that talk about these. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - newly added references are noted below^[1]^[2] - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Staff (25 July 2015). "Pluto mountain range named after Sir Edmund Hillary". Stuff.co.nz. Retrieved 17 August 2015.
^ Staff (24 July 2015). "NASA names Pluto's mountains after Sir Edmund Hillary". Television New Zealand. Retrieved 17 August 2015.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator I would withdraw it if I could but other people have already voted on it. I think now with the improvements that it would be worth having a discussion about merging it to Geography of Pluto--Savonneux (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge - current article of "Hillary Montes" seems sufficiently well-sourced, notable and substantial to be its own article - and does not need to be merged with another article imo atm - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Merge - per Drbrogdan. Article is fine where it is. Jus da fax 00:45, 23 August 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.