Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warden 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 no consensus. Keep / delete arguments roughly equally split. As I can see some arguing, it's probably best not to carry on for another week. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warden Rock edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 67° 32′ 0″ S, 67° 19′ 0″ W, 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. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise coordinates of Warden Rock are 67°31′44″S 67°18′28″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) 07:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it is irrelevant! A location is not notable by means of being a location! Reywas92^Talk 19:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The feature should pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [1] [2] [3] [4] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same basic information just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics. A namesake is not legitimate content beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1 and WP:SIGCOV per the sources above demonstrating coverage in multiple reference works, including Antarctica: An Encyclopedia which I added to the article. 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 Wikipedia:Five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.