Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aruküla Rock


 * 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 repurpose as Glacial erratics of Estonia. My sense of the discussion is that a free-standing article isn't warranted but that a list of such objects, including this one, would be notable. This amounts to a merge without a merge target (yet). Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Aruküla Rock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-sourced stub about a non-notable rock. Seconded prod was removed without any explanation. Sander Säde 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails the verifiability requirements of WP:NGEOG. According to this, the Aruküla formation is a sandstone bed in the area but there is no mention of specific glacial erratics. The Eesti ürglooduse raamat mentioned on the article's talk page appears to mention an eponymous cave system, but not a specific rock. Philg88 ♦talk 13:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Phil.  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 21:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Large erratics of this sort are registered and protected in Estonia. We probably need an Estonian speaker to help with translation but this seems quite feasible and there's no reason to delete in the meantime. Andrew (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reliable sources I could find are Estonian nature registries, and  - and both list close to 400 other similar erratics. Aruküla rock doesn't seem to have any other reliable sources discussing it - it is not among the biggest or best-known erratics in Estonia. It might be worthwhile to create a list article about the large erratics in Estonia, in the same vein as Glacial erratics on and around Rügen - it exists in et.wiki already, et:Eesti hiidrahnude loend  -- Sander Säde  06:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment As a named natural feature, if there are enough verifiable content to write an encyclopedic article, it can have a stand-alone article per WP:GEOLAND.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but it doesn't appear to be a "named feature", which kind of stops your argument in its tracks. Philg88 ♦talk 11:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's the official registry entry. Andrew (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GEOLAND, that still doesn't qualify the rock for its own article, which is why suggestion of a list is a sensible one.  Philg88 ♦talk 20:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ♦talk 16:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and there's just not much to say about it that would justify a dedicated article.- MrX 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep until there is a list article to merge it to. Incorporating this into an English language list based on et:Eesti hiidrahnude loend is a reasonable suggestion, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend this registered natural formation doesn't exist in the meantime.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I too agree it fails WP:GNG and I see no reason to keep as a dedicated subject page.--Canyouhearmenow 11:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and convert to List of Estonian glacial erratics. It is a named geographical feature and appears on a national registry.  As such it should not be deleted altogether per WP:GEOLAND "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature should be included in a more general article on local geography."  There is one more Estonian rock listed at Glacial erratic so the list could start off with two entries at least with more possibly being extracted from the Estonian article by an editor with the necessary skills. SpinningSpark 01:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's an unremarkable rock with no substantial coverage. That said, I think that User:Spinningspark's idea of an article listing these may have merit, but in my opinion that would probably be best approached by creating a fresh new article rather than converting this one.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC).
 * We should not be deleting encyclopaedic information just because we don't like the way it is presented, and we should not be discouraging a relatively inexperienced editor by unnecessarily deleting their contributions. The page should be repurposed rather than deleted in order to preserve attribution. If we are going to keep the information, then we should not be deleting anything—this page title will still be useful as a redirect at least. SpinningSpark 08:48, 19 July 2014 (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.