Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danmark (island)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge into Sandvika.

[edit] Danmark (island)

Okay, I know some people are "keep all real places" so let me explain: This rock is completely unpopulated. There are far more many such rocks and reefs off the coast of Norway than there are schools in the United States. Second, I have searched for any verifiable information that Danes living in Oslo actually celebrate their national holiday (June 5) on this island, and I have found nothing. Here is an aerial photo of the island, it is the rock placed in among the small boat piers. That parking lot in the southwest looks more notable than this. Sjakkalle 13:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: To verify that this actually is the Danmark rock, there is a tab above the photo labeled "kart" (Norwegian for "map"). If you click on that one you will find the rock labelled. Sjakkalle 06:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete rockruft, not quite as bad as schoolcruft but getting there. The second sentence is irrelevant, leaving a 1 sentence substub. Dunc|☺ 13:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if the aerial photo is correct, this rock is smaller than my backyard and has exactly one (1) tree on it. I tend to be an inclusionist on geography (I strongly believe that every named & inhabited town/village should have an article) but I find no reason that every one of the world's nearly-infinite tiny uninhabited islands should each have articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. If need be the tree can be broken out into its own article. Delete. the wub (talk) 15:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with delete. Unless we can verify that this rock has some significance, it needs to go. Meelar (talk) 15:04, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I am for keeping all real places with a position in history, which means that I'm in favor of keeping almost deserted towns and villages that had some part to play at any time in the past. However, this particular rock seems to have done nothing, hosted no one, and been fought over by no life forms higher than the puffin. Geogre 15:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Almafeta 18:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All islands are notable. --Idont Havaname 19:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless there is some evidence anything important happens on that rock. (I say this even acknowledging that there also appears to be some shrubbery on the shore of the island, and not just a tree. I also note that shrubbery redirects to shrub, which inexplicably has no mention of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 19:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sjakkalle, Starblind, Meelar, Geogre, and TenOfAllTrades. I am a geography inclusionist, but I ask that anyone who would vote keep please look at the photo in the link that Sjakkalle provided. Quale 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep all territory that is the subject of puffin wars. No, wait, I meant Delete as pointless geo-cruft. Soundguy99 20:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 20:40, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if the Danes living in Oslo do celebrate their national holiday on this little rock, I'm not really sure that would be enough to make the place noteworthy enough to deserve its own entry, unless the celebration itself was particularly spectacular or considered a really notable event in Oslo. -- Captain Disdain 20:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this rockcruft please Yuckfoo 22:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this stays, then there are a number of rocks in the Spokane River that should be added to the encyclopedia. --Carnildo 22:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Although I do note that there appear to be two trees and something that looks artificial (maybe a warning light), in addition to the shrubbery. --Carnildo 22:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • On the other hand, it could just be a fresh tree stump or a bare rock face catching the light. Uncle G 01:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • I normally vote keep on all real places, but there is nothing about this rock that makes it notable. All islands are not notable. Delete. RickK 23:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • ... And several times I've asked RickK whether "all real places" includes my back garden. My back garden has (amongst other things) trees, shrubbery, "something that looks artificial" (i.e. the shed, a feature that I may have mentioned before ☺). It also has fences. Of course, as far as I know no bird spotter has spotted 2 birds in my back garden, as one reported doing on this island on 2002-09-27; although there are birds in my back garden, and so it is quite possible that one might have. However, the fences of my back garden are more verifiable, of course. For those who turn off Javascript for security, here's the fully zoomed in version of the aerial photograph mentioned above. Uncle G 01:02, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Delete unless said ceremony does exist, then merge to Oslo. --Tydaj 01:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sign of community of interest amongst humans (not birdlife) nor is there any indication that there may have been in the past. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to the harbor it's located in, if it can be verified that the aerial photo really is of this place. Likely a reference point for local Danes and boaters in the area. If an island is notable enough to have a proper name, it ought to be merged if it's too small to keep. --Unfocused 03:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) It's much larger than I originally thought it was. There is no minimum article size for a "perfect article". --Unfocused 05:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable uninhabited rock. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • UPDATE I got a response on the Norwegian Wikipedia. here is an invitation to an arrangement by the Danish Society. I will still say delete, because I still don't think this is particularily more notable than any other party site, but I think people voting ought to know. Sjakkalle 06:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Incidentally, I don't think that this arrangement attracts a great deal of Danes. How many Danes do you suppose would fit on that island? Sjakkalle 06:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The arial photograph shows it as being about 50 meters long by 15-20 wide. --Carnildo 07:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sjakalle. It's a friggin' rock :) Radiant_* 09:00, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • so is alcatraz Yuckfoo 21:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Alcatraz is notable for much more than just being a small rock. Gamaliel 05:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. JamesBurns 11:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone can write a halfway decent, relevant, history of this rock. Which seems unlikely. CDC (talk) 22:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this stays, I have a patio that I can write an article about. — Phil Welch 00:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Only if the article includes an aerial photo of your patio. . . . . . . Soundguy99 01:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Google Maps should be able to provide... --Carnildo 02:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some uninhabited small islands are notable in some way. This one apparently is not. No Account
  • Comment But then, we do have an article on Mill Ends Park and it's way smaller than this island.  Grue  16:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's an even bigger rock in Biscayne Bay, where I grew up, which the local teens call "Beercan Island" for reasons which don't require a lot of imagination. It doesn't deserve it's own article. I suspect this one doesn't either. -- BD2412 talk 00:44, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gravelcruft. Gamaliel 05:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge into an article on the harbour it's located in if that article exists. It seems marginally notable in that it's called Danmark and Danes in Oslo celebrate their national holiday there. I think it's worthy of inclusion. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Question (and comment). Would anyone complain if I merged this into Sandvika and left a redirect? That's the local city, and this is a feature of that town's geography. (On that note, I don't see National Geographic erasing names off their maps because the mapped feature is "too small", so the delete option doesn't seem correct to me.) Unfocused 17:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think that would be a good idea. Because it's probably not possible to write a huge article on this island, everything worth saying about it could probably be mentioned in Sandvika. I like this as a general principle in cases of questionable notability. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a harmless compromise, and a as Trilobite says, it's a good general principle. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I can accept a merge and/or a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.