Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nessie 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 merge to South Shetland Islands. I am required to list an article to merge this nomination too - please choose whatever article is the best - or create one, if necessary. Meaning, it doesn't have to be South_Shetland_Islands. No one really gave a solid merge option so I just chose the best one I could find reading the comments. TY. Missvain (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Nessie Rock

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsure how notable this is, or even if it is accepted outside Bulgaria. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This rock on not the article's map File:Livingston-Island-Map-2010-15.png so I'm baffled what the basis for an article is beyond mere existence. Quite a few pages on Template:South Shetlands that likewise lack any notability. Reywas92Talk 00:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then they should all be AFD'd.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose The notability criteria applicable to this article on a named natural feature are set in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features): Geographic regions, areas and places and stipulate that:
 * Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
 * In this particular case, the sources provided ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article comprising, in addition to name and location, information such as: description of the geographic feature; related features; etymology of the name; maps showing the feature’s vicinity, related features, and the feature itself (nameless at the time of mapping); and visualization of the feature through interactive satellite imagery.
 * By the way, the amount of information in the article is comparable to that of a good number of other articles in the relevant Category:Landforms of Antarctica and subcategories. Apcbg (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course it's comparable, you made many of these minimal articles! WP:NGEO is also clear that "This guideline specifically excludes maps, tables, lists, databases, etc., from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." so the notion that because the feature can be viewed on a map or satellite image it is notable is ridiculous. How does listing "related features" establish notability for this feature??? Small rocks are not automatically notable because we know the source of their name and that they are rocks. South_Shetland_Islands could have a subarticle that really puts these in context of each other with the "vicinity", "related features", and all the generic links that don't actually provide coverage of the topic together. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, by “comparable” I meant more informative than e.g. articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and hundreds or rather thousands of equally minimal articles on all kinds of geographic features, not necessarily rocks, whose content is likewise confined to relevant USGS GNIS entries (and which articles I have not written).
 * Yes those sources are excluded but WP:NGEO goes on to say that “On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability” and, as explained above, the article sources provide a standardized description of the feature and other information beyond name and location, so that we certainly know more than “the source of their name and that they are rocks.” Once again, the WP:NGEO criterion of notability is the available information not the mere listing of sources or related features. Relation to nearby features, mapping and satellite imagery quoted in the article are relevant as they put in context, supplement and illustrate the feature’s original description from the gazetteer narrative rather than just mentioning the feature.
 * While WP:NGEO recommends in the case of articles on named nature features with inadequate information not deletion but possible article merging in order to keep encyclopedic content, it is usually that a small number of articles on related features are merged. An example of a wider integrated approach applied in practice is the excellent work on the geography of Trinity Island carried out by User:Premeditated Chaos. However, that could hardly be repeated with a single ‘subarticle’ of South Shetland Islands covering an entire archipelago as suggested, and even possible separate ‘subarticles’ for the larger islands would probably be way too clumsy. Apcbg (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What about this rock do we know beyond its location and that it's named after Nessie? What is "described"? The only source is http://apcbg.org/gazet-bg.pdf (that you apparently have some relation to (which is okay)) which says "Geographical site: Rock near the northwest coast of the South Bay of the island. Livingston, long 111 m in the southeast-northwest direction and 50 m wide. Area 0.4 ha. Located 340 m east of Lukovo and 4.67 km west-southwest of Erebi. Region: South Shetland Islands. Mapping: Bulgarian from 2009 and 2017. Geographic map: [9] Origin of the name: Named so because its outlines reminiscent of the monster from Loch Ness. Date of approval: 23 April 2021." I see no basis for notability and a small rock island's own article here. "Better than mass-produced GNIS junk that should also go" isn't the most convincing. Reywas92Talk 18:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What is "described"? Well, “Rock near the northwest coast of the South Bay of Livingston Island, long 111 m in southeast-northwest direction and 50 m wide, with a surface area of 0.4 ha etc.” looks like a description to me. As for the “mass-produced GNIS junk that should also go” the fact that it has not actually gone doesn’t make your reasoning any more valid. Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I struggle to see how one could know anything less than dimensions – I could report the length and width of anything on the planet using Google Earth but that doesn't make them notable because it could be described in such a mundane way. This is the epitome of non-notability for physical features. The fact that they're still here doesn't make your reasoning any more valid either. Reywas92Talk 17:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NGEO distinguishes between existent and nonexistent descriptions rather than between mundane and nonmundane ones. Needless to say, your Google Earth report would be WP:OR. Apcbg (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge this and every other minor rock/spit/reef/what have ye listed at South Shetlands to something like List of minor features of the South Shetland Islands. It fails WP:GEOLAND as a standalone, but a list would be informative for the reader. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please give some example of a list per WP:Manual of Style/Lists resulting from such merger of articles, if possible also a sample of what exactly content from one of the merged South Shetlands articles would be incorporated in the suggested List of minor features of the South Shetland Islands, and indeed some example of a similar list of geographic features from elsewhere in Antarctica or from whatever other region? Apcbg (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My personal preference when merging Antarctic gazetteer stubs when I was doing that regularly was to merge up to the next closest "large" feature (rocks to the island they are closest to, capes to the relevant bay, etc), but it's hard to do that systematically, especially if there's no obvious nearby feature to merge to. List of nunataks is ugly as sin and really needs to be reworked, but it's an okay example of a list cobbled together from the merging of a bunch of minor geographical features. You could probably do something similar with the Shetland features list, if you actually do want to go for that. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it could be possible to merge the minor features discussed here to related nearby ones, and this particular way of merging might probably be the better one. The alternative listing approach may also be applied, yet if we consider the List of nunataks as a sample project, the picture is less than encouraging. If I am not wrong, that list has made little progress since its start five years ago and is nowhere near completion, with just a hundred or so articles on Antarctic nunataks actually merged so far and no apparent enthusiasm for processing the remaining some six hundred ones. In its present form the list hardly brings much of the alleged merger benefits. Apcbg (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well - there is no deadline. Plenty of stuff is garbage until someone does something about it. The ultimate problem isn't the state of that list, it's that Nessie Rock in specific fails GEOLAND, and shouldn't be kept as a standalone. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge per Apcbg, there is much useful content here, deletion seems inappropriate IMHO. WCM email 08:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to an appropriate article. I think the content here is useful, but I think merging to a wider article might be more appropriate, unless there's some reason to believe that more content may be available. Kahastok talk 19:37, 10 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.