- 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 no consensus to delete the article. What there is a consensus for is to create an overarching list article for this and similar articles, and to merge & redirect the content. If and when someone gets around to creating that article, I would respectfully suggest that this and other, similar discussions can be used as evidence of a community consensus potentially existing, at which point some bold merge & redirects could occur. Up to individual editors though. Daniel ( talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sinbad Rock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92 Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte ( talk) 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Apcbg (
talk)
11:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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 as 62°10'S 59°02'W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Reywas92 Talk 18:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The precise coordinates of Sinbad Rock are 62°09'11.5"S 59°02'21.2"W according the linked reliable source, Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. Apcbg ( talk) 07:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - a name of a tiny piece of rock of no significance whatsoever,
may not even be above waterif I'm reading that right. This only has "Rock in Water". Nothing to merge, as nothing significant has ever been written about this feature that I can find. When this can only be attested through trivial database listings, this is very obviously non-notable. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry you’re not reading that right, according to the UK and Chile gazetteers it’s rising to 3 m above sea level; the “below the water rock” is another feature lying miles away. And it’s more than a trivial listing of name and coordinates. As your own reference demonstrates Sinbad Rock is part of a sailing directives narrative attesting to its significance in the course of navigation. It also appears in the US, UK, Chile and SCAR Antarctic gazetteers with details of the history of its surveying, charting and naming.
Apcbg (
talk)
07:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still at delete here, even if it is 9 foot tall and above water. I wouldn't characterize any of the sources I've seen as anything further than "it exists, it's 3 m tall, and it's at coordinates". When it comes down to it, a lot of the rocks seem to be about the natural equivalent of a U.S. National Geodetic Survey survey disk - it's a minor feature at a known site that provides some directional/survey help, but about which nothing significant has never been written and probably never will be written. Hog Farm Talk 00:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry you’re not reading that right, according to the UK and Chile gazetteers it’s rising to 3 m above sea level; the “below the water rock” is another feature lying miles away. And it’s more than a trivial listing of name and coordinates. As your own reference demonstrates Sinbad Rock is part of a sailing directives narrative attesting to its significance in the course of navigation. It also appears in the US, UK, Chile and SCAR Antarctic gazetteers with details of the history of its surveying, charting and naming.
Apcbg (
talk)
07:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- The feature should pass
WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins).
Apcbg (
talk)
12:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics that could expand the article. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92 Talk 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- The feature should pass
WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins).
Apcbg (
talk)
12:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:5P1 and
WP:SIGCOV per the sources above demonstrating coverage 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. @
Reywas92 After having commented on several of these nominations, I would strongly urge you to take a step back and look at the big picture in terms of wikipedia's goals and objectives.
WP:Five Pillars is the bedrock of all policy, and dismissing published academic encyclopedias as trivial supporting evidence at an AFD discussion seems like you have forgotten what wikipedia is trying to achieve; namely being an encyclopedia.
4meter4 (
talk)
13:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. Both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND4 expect a level of substantive coverage that these sources do not provide. Existence with a name with a mere mention that it was "charted" isn't the basis for an article about a small rock. Even in a published book, a couple lines do not equate an article. Reywas92 Talk 21:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
-
WP:5P1 trumps GEOLAND and GNG per
WP:Fundamentals. If it's in a published encyclopedia it stays. Period.
4meter4 (
talk)
01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. It has never been our policy to throw away our notability guidelines so that anything merely barely mentioned in an outside encyclopedia is mandated to have its own article here. "combines many features of general and specialized
encyclopedias,
almanacs, and
gazetteers" does not mean any item that any such published work mentions without details is immune from discussion.
The Pokemon Encyclopedia is a specialized encyclopedia covered by 5P1, but that does not mandate we have individual articles about each Pokemon.
Reywas92
Talk
05:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think comparing a serious academic encyclopedia on the continent of Antarctica to an encyclopedia of "fancruft" on a fictional universe is a bit disingenuous on your part. Further, your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally
WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an academic encyclopedia on the real world, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently; mainly because the authors and editors of a published encyclopedia are typically experts within that academic field and are more qualified to judge notability for encyclopedic inclusion in a particular content area than lay editors at wikipedia. In other words, we trust that the entries in an academic encyclopedia are in fact worthy of inclusion in wikipedia because experts have included it in their published encyclopedia. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.
4meter4 (
talk)
15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have a copy of Encyclopedia of California Place Names. It has tens of thousands of entries, most just a few short sentences similar to this gazetteer. Someone mass-created several thousand articles on populated places from this book, but we have had to cull and delete many hundreds of them because they are not in fact notable (and populated places tend to be more notable than tiny rocks and hills and whatnot). This book was compiled by experts based on many historical and geographical references that are highly reliable. But you are nuts if you think anything needs its own article merely because there are two non-descriptive sentences about it in such a comprehensive gazetteer. You know damn well that
WP:GNG includes "significant coverage" as a criterion for notability, not that anything with a "bolded named topic" in a book is automatically notable and cannot be deleted or mentioned in another article instead of its own. BS.
Reywas92
Talk
21:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I do think it would be possible to house the content of this page within another larger article where we can place a suitable redirect (potentially something like Rock formations of King George Island (South Shetland Islands) . However, at the moment there is no article currently in existence which makes a good target for merge/redirect. As such, keeping the article is the best option available per my reasoning above. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have a copy of Encyclopedia of California Place Names. It has tens of thousands of entries, most just a few short sentences similar to this gazetteer. Someone mass-created several thousand articles on populated places from this book, but we have had to cull and delete many hundreds of them because they are not in fact notable (and populated places tend to be more notable than tiny rocks and hills and whatnot). This book was compiled by experts based on many historical and geographical references that are highly reliable. But you are nuts if you think anything needs its own article merely because there are two non-descriptive sentences about it in such a comprehensive gazetteer. You know damn well that
WP:GNG includes "significant coverage" as a criterion for notability, not that anything with a "bolded named topic" in a book is automatically notable and cannot be deleted or mentioned in another article instead of its own. BS.
Reywas92
Talk
21:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think comparing a serious academic encyclopedia on the continent of Antarctica to an encyclopedia of "fancruft" on a fictional universe is a bit disingenuous on your part. Further, your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally
WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an academic encyclopedia on the real world, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently; mainly because the authors and editors of a published encyclopedia are typically experts within that academic field and are more qualified to judge notability for encyclopedic inclusion in a particular content area than lay editors at wikipedia. In other words, we trust that the entries in an academic encyclopedia are in fact worthy of inclusion in wikipedia because experts have included it in their published encyclopedia. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.
4meter4 (
talk)
15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. It has never been our policy to throw away our notability guidelines so that anything merely barely mentioned in an outside encyclopedia is mandated to have its own article here. "combines many features of general and specialized
encyclopedias,
almanacs, and
gazetteers" does not mean any item that any such published work mentions without details is immune from discussion.
The Pokemon Encyclopedia is a specialized encyclopedia covered by 5P1, but that does not mandate we have individual articles about each Pokemon.
Reywas92
Talk
05:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
-
WP:5P1 trumps GEOLAND and GNG per
WP:Fundamentals. If it's in a published encyclopedia it stays. Period.
4meter4 (
talk)
01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x ( talk) 21:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x ( talk) 21:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Where is the signficiant coverage? Most importantly, this completely lacks any secondary sources. Bearian ( talk) 00:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- How is an encyclopedia not a secondary source? 4meter4 ( talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep/Merge - Really, this and the the other rocks and reefs mentioned in Template:South_Shetlands could be profitably combined into a list article, with a redirect. Absent that work, I agree this narrowly passes WP:GEOLAND, as "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Suriname0 ( talk) 16:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", I agree that a redirect to a future South Shetlands' rocks and reefs article would be appropriate, when such an article exists. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:21, 8 July 2021 (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.
- 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 no consensus to delete the article. What there is a consensus for is to create an overarching list article for this and similar articles, and to merge & redirect the content. If and when someone gets around to creating that article, I would respectfully suggest that this and other, similar discussions can be used as evidence of a community consensus potentially existing, at which point some bold merge & redirects could occur. Up to individual editors though. Daniel ( talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sinbad Rock ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92 Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte ( talk) 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Apcbg (
talk)
11:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- 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 as 62°10'S 59°02'W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Reywas92 Talk 18:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The precise coordinates of Sinbad Rock are 62°09'11.5"S 59°02'21.2"W according the linked reliable source, Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. Apcbg ( talk) 07:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - a name of a tiny piece of rock of no significance whatsoever,
may not even be above waterif I'm reading that right. This only has "Rock in Water". Nothing to merge, as nothing significant has ever been written about this feature that I can find. When this can only be attested through trivial database listings, this is very obviously non-notable. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry you’re not reading that right, according to the UK and Chile gazetteers it’s rising to 3 m above sea level; the “below the water rock” is another feature lying miles away. And it’s more than a trivial listing of name and coordinates. As your own reference demonstrates Sinbad Rock is part of a sailing directives narrative attesting to its significance in the course of navigation. It also appears in the US, UK, Chile and SCAR Antarctic gazetteers with details of the history of its surveying, charting and naming.
Apcbg (
talk)
07:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm still at delete here, even if it is 9 foot tall and above water. I wouldn't characterize any of the sources I've seen as anything further than "it exists, it's 3 m tall, and it's at coordinates". When it comes down to it, a lot of the rocks seem to be about the natural equivalent of a U.S. National Geodetic Survey survey disk - it's a minor feature at a known site that provides some directional/survey help, but about which nothing significant has never been written and probably never will be written. Hog Farm Talk 00:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry you’re not reading that right, according to the UK and Chile gazetteers it’s rising to 3 m above sea level; the “below the water rock” is another feature lying miles away. And it’s more than a trivial listing of name and coordinates. As your own reference demonstrates Sinbad Rock is part of a sailing directives narrative attesting to its significance in the course of navigation. It also appears in the US, UK, Chile and SCAR Antarctic gazetteers with details of the history of its surveying, charting and naming.
Apcbg (
talk)
07:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- The feature should pass
WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins).
Apcbg (
talk)
12:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics that could expand the article. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92 Talk 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- The feature should pass
WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins).
Apcbg (
talk)
12:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:5P1 and
WP:SIGCOV per the sources above demonstrating coverage 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. @
Reywas92 After having commented on several of these nominations, I would strongly urge you to take a step back and look at the big picture in terms of wikipedia's goals and objectives.
WP:Five Pillars is the bedrock of all policy, and dismissing published academic encyclopedias as trivial supporting evidence at an AFD discussion seems like you have forgotten what wikipedia is trying to achieve; namely being an encyclopedia.
4meter4 (
talk)
13:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. Both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND4 expect a level of substantive coverage that these sources do not provide. Existence with a name with a mere mention that it was "charted" isn't the basis for an article about a small rock. Even in a published book, a couple lines do not equate an article. Reywas92 Talk 21:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
-
WP:5P1 trumps GEOLAND and GNG per
WP:Fundamentals. If it's in a published encyclopedia it stays. Period.
4meter4 (
talk)
01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. It has never been our policy to throw away our notability guidelines so that anything merely barely mentioned in an outside encyclopedia is mandated to have its own article here. "combines many features of general and specialized
encyclopedias,
almanacs, and
gazetteers" does not mean any item that any such published work mentions without details is immune from discussion.
The Pokemon Encyclopedia is a specialized encyclopedia covered by 5P1, but that does not mandate we have individual articles about each Pokemon.
Reywas92
Talk
05:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think comparing a serious academic encyclopedia on the continent of Antarctica to an encyclopedia of "fancruft" on a fictional universe is a bit disingenuous on your part. Further, your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally
WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an academic encyclopedia on the real world, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently; mainly because the authors and editors of a published encyclopedia are typically experts within that academic field and are more qualified to judge notability for encyclopedic inclusion in a particular content area than lay editors at wikipedia. In other words, we trust that the entries in an academic encyclopedia are in fact worthy of inclusion in wikipedia because experts have included it in their published encyclopedia. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.
4meter4 (
talk)
15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have a copy of Encyclopedia of California Place Names. It has tens of thousands of entries, most just a few short sentences similar to this gazetteer. Someone mass-created several thousand articles on populated places from this book, but we have had to cull and delete many hundreds of them because they are not in fact notable (and populated places tend to be more notable than tiny rocks and hills and whatnot). This book was compiled by experts based on many historical and geographical references that are highly reliable. But you are nuts if you think anything needs its own article merely because there are two non-descriptive sentences about it in such a comprehensive gazetteer. You know damn well that
WP:GNG includes "significant coverage" as a criterion for notability, not that anything with a "bolded named topic" in a book is automatically notable and cannot be deleted or mentioned in another article instead of its own. BS.
Reywas92
Talk
21:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I do think it would be possible to house the content of this page within another larger article where we can place a suitable redirect (potentially something like Rock formations of King George Island (South Shetland Islands) . However, at the moment there is no article currently in existence which makes a good target for merge/redirect. As such, keeping the article is the best option available per my reasoning above. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have a copy of Encyclopedia of California Place Names. It has tens of thousands of entries, most just a few short sentences similar to this gazetteer. Someone mass-created several thousand articles on populated places from this book, but we have had to cull and delete many hundreds of them because they are not in fact notable (and populated places tend to be more notable than tiny rocks and hills and whatnot). This book was compiled by experts based on many historical and geographical references that are highly reliable. But you are nuts if you think anything needs its own article merely because there are two non-descriptive sentences about it in such a comprehensive gazetteer. You know damn well that
WP:GNG includes "significant coverage" as a criterion for notability, not that anything with a "bolded named topic" in a book is automatically notable and cannot be deleted or mentioned in another article instead of its own. BS.
Reywas92
Talk
21:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think comparing a serious academic encyclopedia on the continent of Antarctica to an encyclopedia of "fancruft" on a fictional universe is a bit disingenuous on your part. Further, your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally
WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an academic encyclopedia on the real world, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently; mainly because the authors and editors of a published encyclopedia are typically experts within that academic field and are more qualified to judge notability for encyclopedic inclusion in a particular content area than lay editors at wikipedia. In other words, we trust that the entries in an academic encyclopedia are in fact worthy of inclusion in wikipedia because experts have included it in their published encyclopedia. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.
4meter4 (
talk)
15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. It has never been our policy to throw away our notability guidelines so that anything merely barely mentioned in an outside encyclopedia is mandated to have its own article here. "combines many features of general and specialized
encyclopedias,
almanacs, and
gazetteers" does not mean any item that any such published work mentions without details is immune from discussion.
The Pokemon Encyclopedia is a specialized encyclopedia covered by 5P1, but that does not mandate we have individual articles about each Pokemon.
Reywas92
Talk
05:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
-
WP:5P1 trumps GEOLAND and GNG per
WP:Fundamentals. If it's in a published encyclopedia it stays. Period.
4meter4 (
talk)
01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x ( talk) 21:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x ( talk) 21:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Where is the signficiant coverage? Most importantly, this completely lacks any secondary sources. Bearian ( talk) 00:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- How is an encyclopedia not a secondary source? 4meter4 ( talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep/Merge - Really, this and the the other rocks and reefs mentioned in Template:South_Shetlands could be profitably combined into a list article, with a redirect. Absent that work, I agree this narrowly passes WP:GEOLAND, as "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Suriname0 ( talk) 16:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep as "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", I agree that a redirect to a future South Shetlands' rocks and reefs article would be appropriate, when such an article exists. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:21, 8 July 2021 (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.