Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartlett Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts)


 * 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   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 03:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Bartlett Rock (Plymouth County, Massachusetts)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to fail the GNG (unless this is actually something more than just a rock that gives it inherent notability). Yaksar (let's chat) 02:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange, there's another Bartlett Rock in Essex County that suffers from the same issue as this one. Anyway, I couldn't find any evidence that this rock was a tourist attraction, a famous location, or otherwise.  I find some geographic websites that did name it and provide coordinates, but nothing describing the location in detail.  If someone can find something with significant coverage of the subject, let me know.  Otherwise, well, not all rocks can be K2, so delete.  I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete What's next, articles on the authors' pet rocks? Non-notable in the extreme, reliable sources seem to say very little about it. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I suspect that this is a navigation hazard. If so, it's a small island and likely the subject of significant commentary; for example, we might find accounts of ships that have hit it or of other uses, especially in local histories.  I can't be sure about any of this, so I'm not going to say "keep", but this is clearly not just a random piece of stone.  Nyttend (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See . Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: For pity's sake, I've sailed around there, and this is well to the left of insignificant.  Certainly there are no reliable sources discussing the subject at all, never mind in "significant detail."  It's not in the path of navigation at all - Green Harbor's channel tracks well to the south of it - and it's all of about 50 feet wide at low tide.  A random piece of stone is exactly what I'd call it, and there's nothing about the article suggesting otherwise.   Ravenswing  17:07, 14 November 2011 (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.