Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scend Rocks


 * 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 no consensus to delete the article. What there is a consensus for is to create an overarching list article for this and similar articles, and to merge & redirect the content. If and when someone gets around to creating that article, I would respectfully suggest that this and other, similar discussions can be used as evidence of a community consensus potentially existing, at which point some bold merge & redirects could occur. Up to individual editors though. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Scend Rocks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Small rocks mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 10 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. And rocks do play some role in navigation. Apcbg (talk) 12:05, 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 they are! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning tiny, nondescript rocks on some other article merely because they exist. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research. Reywas92Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The precise coordinates of Scend Rocks are 64°48′03″S 64°16′36 W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee. WP:OR: “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” Apcbg (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But it is irrelevant! Reywas92Talk 19:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:53, 17 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). Apcbg (talk) 12:29, 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 that could expand the article. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92Talk 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:5P1 and WP:SIGCOV. The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated in the multiple sources above. More importantly, the subject has an entry in Antarctica: An Encyclopedia. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at Five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source is significant coverage???? There are hardly "multiple" sources when they all just duplicate the same note of existence. Your last statement is wrong when that gazetteer entry merely briefly mentions its location. There are plenty of specialized encyclopedias for which we do not have individual articles for every entry and 5P does not mandate that. Reywas92Talk 21:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an encyclopedia, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:00, 29 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.