Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosman Island


 * 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 as copyvio. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Kosman Island

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article about an island could be notable, but in that case the the article should be about the island. This article is not. Unreliable and possibly fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 11:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliability is, ironically, not the problem. The text of the article was lifted wholesale, sentence by sentence, from .  It was not actually written by a Wikipedia editor at all.  Copying and pasting is not writing. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep but possibly rename to Long-Kosman reefs. The place is listed as 'Kosman Island' in multiple editions of 'Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia' (for example here) and it also appears as such on Google maps. However this article and the research paper by Foale and Sabetian refer to the place as reefs.  I can't find any refs apart from these, so wasn't initially sure if it met our notability requirements.  However there's too much specific info to make a merge with Louisiade Archipelago appropriate. I don't agree with the comment by UncleG above: several sentences in one section of the article are close paraphrases of text from the Foale and Sabetian article, but I don't see that as problematic.  In thinking about whether this place is independently notable or not I've taken as a benchmark the many thousands of stub article we have in the encyclopedia about geographical features in Antartica.  These places have never been inhabited and never will be, and are simply described as next to another islet or peak.  The community has long agreed that these articles should be kept for their gazeteer value. As the Kosman Island/reefs have been the locus of a specific piece of research and of recorded human conflict, they meet a much higher threshold of notability than the Antartica ones. WP:GEOLAND says geographical features may be notable 'provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.'  The content of this article is that information. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not close paraphrasing. This is out and out copy and paste. Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:G12, clear WP:COPYVIO. No comment on the notability of the island, it's likely notable per WP:GEOLAND given the sources. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:33, 11 June 2019 (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.