Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiri Lava Cave

Wiri Lava Cave

Wiri Lava Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging into the Matukutūruru page (the volcano this cave is part of).

Reasons:

1. Short text: It's a 300m cave with a simple layout. There are some interesting features inside, but with little published research it isn't possible to write a significant amount about them.

2. Context: The cave geology and history are best understood in the context of the volcano.

3. Overlap: Interesting things about the cave are also interesting things about the volcano, so the volcano page will end up duplicating most of this page. An example of this is Matukutūruru#Protection_of_the_cave, which forms an important part of the recent history of the volcano.

@DadaNeem, Johnragla, Bryndlefly, and Aebion: Notifying contributors to the articles. Samuel Bailey (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Samuel Bailey (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: Been labelled by the government as a "geological feature of national significance", and appears to have received quite a bit of significant coverage, including from page 302 of this book, this publication^[1] from the Geoscience society, and numerous additional sources listed here. nil ^nz 06:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify for future closers, my "keep" is to keep them as separate articles. nil ^nz 13:32, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per Nil Nz. The fact that it was labeled by the Parliament as a "geological feature of national significance" means it passes WP:GEOFEAT. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Noting that I refactored the AfD template with the new merging parameters to reflect the nomination and added the merge-from tag to the proposed destination article. @Confuciou if you want to revert that to use the old deletion version of the template please feel free to do that. I have no opinion on the nomination at this time. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support merge - I'm a little confused by the other responses, which don't seem to respond explicitly to the merge argument in the nomination? It's clear that the subject is notable, but I agree with the nominator that the subject is better covered editorially on the Matukutūruru page; if an expansion causes this page to become too large, a split in the future may be warranted. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  If the article is merged, there will be a lower chance of expansion, there is nothing wrong with stubs. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  If the article is merged, there will be a lower chance of expansion
  What? FaviFake (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  Because it is easier to expand an existing article than to reverse a redirect. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  If merged, editors are supposed to improve the target article, not the redirect. FaviFake (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  An article being a stub is an encouragement to expand. On the other hand, nothing in a larger article indicated that the section should be expanded. In general, notable stubs should be kept. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  A merger is an expansion - of the merge target. Geschichte (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but the sourcing for the topic is in-depth enough to justify a standalone page. That the current iteration of the page is currently a stub is no reason to merge. Katzrockso (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  No new information appears on Wikipedia as a result of a merge, however, some may disappear. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per Suriname0; notability is not the problem here. FaviFake (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. This is very notable, to the point that ^[1] a published article in a geoscience article titled "Why Wiri lava cave is so special". The unique features of this cave and the exceptional attention devoted to it warrant a standalone page. The sources cited in this paper give enough material to support an article long enough that it would be UNDUE in the main article. This makes a merge unwarranted, as it would prevent expansion to include this encyclopedic material. Katzrockso (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge there are two referenced sentences and they tell you the dimensions and that it is a lava cave of Wiri mountain. If someone wishes to expand it a merge can be easily undone. This article has been a stub for 16 years and no one has bothered to expand it yet. The target article has more (and better referenced) coverage of the subject, there is no reason not to send the reader there.

Traumnovelle (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Reverse Merge. The information covered in the target should be cut down and added to the article about the cave. There is clearly enough information to justify the cave article and the volcano article, there is no reason for them to cover the same info. Honestly, as far as caves go, and I have now written about 5, this is one of the better ones I have seen for finding sources. Most of the time this sort of information would be in some random hard copy publication in someones attic. May as well take advantage of this. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also, stubs are ok! They often help to expand the Encylapedia. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear, KEEP as clearly notable. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has been agreed that notability isn't an issue here. The current stalemate is regarding where the article content should be located, either on its own page or merged elsewhere. Under the new WP:PAM rules, this discussion can take place here. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep, an obvious one. The arguments for maintaining a standalone page are quite strong. We certainly have the sources to justify it. MediaKyle (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Keep both, I fundamentally don't understand how these could be merged. The notability of both is well agreed in their own right. The cave has a lot of scope for improvement, which would risk overwhelming an article about the mountain, and the mountain has content which would not make any sense in an article about the caves. Turnagra (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  'I fundamentally don't understand how these could be merged.' well if you look at the target article you can see how, as it already has more content about the lava cave. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I should have said that I don't understand why these should be merged. Perhaps instead of trying to delete this article, you could move the content over and help to expand the article? Turnagra (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why would I do that when I believe readers are better served with a merge? The editor who has put the most effort as of late into the subject is the one proposing the merge and I believe he would do a good job in carrying it out. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To reiterate 11WB's relisting comment above: this discussion isn't about the notability of the cave, which isn't disputed. What we're trying to decide is whether readers would be better served by seeing the content in the broader context of Matukutūruru, where it is already covered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Merge for duplication, context and short text. The section at Matukutūruru#Wiri Lava Cave already coveres the cave with a similar level of detail. It's easier to maintain content in one place than two, as these could easily diverge. I don't see that notability arguments are at all relevant for this particular proposal (as the proposer has already noted, but earlier commenters seem to have missed). Klbrain (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  The sources on Wiri Lava Cave more than warrant a standalone page, as a 'final version' of the article would be much too long and detailed to be WP:DUE weight in Matukutūruru. Katzrockso (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Well we can continue to wait another 15 years for that 'final version' to come around, or we can merge it now and if someone wishes to expand it in the future it can be re-created as a stand alone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  If merged, it is much less likely to be expanded, since it won't be clear that the topic is as notable and warrants a standalone page. A stub harms nobody. WP:IMPERFECT (a policy) states poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. WP:NOMERGE states Merging should be avoided if: ... the separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles.

  The policies are quite clear on this. Katzrockso (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  >If merged, it is much less likely to be expanded^{[citation needed]}

  It has already been a stub for 15 years and no one has expanded it, the editor who has done the most work on this topic on Wikipedia believes it should be merged.

  You should probably read the whole page you link to, which states: 'Short text: If a article is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a article on a broader topic.'

  Well this article is very short, and it hasn't been expanded in 15 years, I think that is a very reasonable amount of time. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Who would know that this topic is standalone notable and deserving of substantial depth if it's a short section in an already obscure article?

  It already manifestly does not meet WP:MERGETEXT as the article is longer than 2 sentences. It must be more 1-2 sentences to meet the rationale, as the wording specifically uses the conjunction "and". WP:MERGETEXT is not a bludgeon to vanish shorter articles an editor doesn't like, it's to merge away stubs that barely have any content whatsoever.

  For what it's worth, I already expanded the article by moving some of the content from the proposed target to Wiri Lava Cave. It could be expanded further as I doubt much of the content at the target actually belongs there. Katzrockso (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

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.