Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atherton Islands


 * 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 redirect to South Shetland Islands with history left intact for those editors expressing interest in a merge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Atherton Islands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect >> South Shetland Islands. Djflem (talk) 16:34, 11 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) 11:51, 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 imprecisely as -64.8, -64.25, 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. Reywas92Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The precise coordinates of Atherton Islands are 62°05'15.3"S 58°56'45.7"W according the linked reliable source, Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. Apcbg (talk) 07:23, 15 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)
 * Redirect to Noel Atherton, I could literally find no information on this place other than that it exists. Existing is not enough to pass WP:GEOLAND, and there is clearly not the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. I do not think it is important enough to warrant a mention on any other page besides Noel Atherton's. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The feature should pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources    with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Other relevant coverage      . Apcbg (talk) 12:39, 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. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92Talk 18:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GEOLAND per the sources above, and per WP:5P1. With an entry in the Composite Gazetteer Of Antarctica it should automatically meet GNG per the first pillar as doing the work of a gazetteer is in our primary mission statement.4meter4 (talk) 13:11, 24 June 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.