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.
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. And rocks do play some role in navigation.
Apcbg (
talk)
12:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)reply
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (
WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as
65° 28′ 0″ S, 65° 53′ 0″ W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning a tiny, nondescript rock on some other article merely because it exists. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research.
Reywas92Talk18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)reply
The precise coordinates of Buzfuz Rock are
65°28′55″S 65°52′24″W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee.
WP:OR: “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.”
Apcbg (
talk)
07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)reply
This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself.
Reywas92Talk18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:5P1 and
WP:SIGCOV. The subject clearly passes
WP:SIGCOV. Google books shows the topic is covered in multiple reference works, including Antarctica: An Encyclopedia which I added to the article. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at
Wikipedia:Five pillars.
4meter4 (
talk)
12:52, 24 June 2021 (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.
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.
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. And rocks do play some role in navigation.
Apcbg (
talk)
12:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)reply
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (
WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as
65° 28′ 0″ S, 65° 53′ 0″ W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning a tiny, nondescript rock on some other article merely because it exists. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research.
Reywas92Talk18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)reply
The precise coordinates of Buzfuz Rock are
65°28′55″S 65°52′24″W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee.
WP:OR: “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.”
Apcbg (
talk)
07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)reply
This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself.
Reywas92Talk18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:5P1 and
WP:SIGCOV. The subject clearly passes
WP:SIGCOV. Google books shows the topic is covered in multiple reference works, including Antarctica: An Encyclopedia which I added to the article. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at
Wikipedia:Five pillars.
4meter4 (
talk)
12:52, 24 June 2021 (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.