Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torca Island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Could still be merged/redirected until the article can be expanded. W.marsh 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torca Island

Torca Island (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:V issues: [1]. WP:N issues: Brief mention in one book by an Bermuda Triangleist does not make it notable to have its own article. The Evil Spartan 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, I've found a second mention, but I don't know of the actual text yet. This may not be a question of whether the article is ever verifiable, but whether we're able to adequtely verify it in the future. The latter appears to be true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And I've found a third book referring to it as the "Island of Torca," further verifying what's in the article thus far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as providing no information whatsoever. DGG 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - While the references are books and not internet hyperlinks, I'll assume good faith that they verify this was a phantom island. --Oakshade 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, does assuming good faith with WP:V work? Verifiability seems to go the other way - we need to be cautious. The Evil Spartan 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Non-URL refs is an ongoing paradox of WP:V that might never be solved. The smart-alacs at Wikitruth seem to be the only group taking the issue head on. --Oakshade 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the Shephard account seems to be the fullest but does not specify location with respect to historical names. An island named "Amboy" is within canoe range, but there's no such place either, unless the Indonesian island of Ambon, formerly Amboyna, is meant; it's near the Banda Sea volcanic region, but volcanology sources don't indicate any volcano with a name similar to "Torca", and records do exist into the 17th century. I strongly believe that any volcano, even submarine, with a holocene history of eruption would be known by now, especially if it had been inhabited within human history. Chalk this one up as apocryphal, though, and unnotable to boot. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is referenced in the article on phantom islands and it is footnoted. (Gerhard1 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete as a simple footnote, or redirect to phantom island. If ever there is found enough material for more than a stub it can be split out from the parent then. That something exists doesn't mean we need to have an article. It can be a redirect to a more significant article where it can be discussed in context. In this case even the parent article has little to say. SilkTork 17:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I'm convinced this can be expanded further. If it can't, we can revisit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I don't meant to trivialize your comment, but that's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Just because it can be expanded doesn't say anything about WP:V or WP:N - or even that if it's notable, it deserves its own article. The Evil Spartan 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it's verifiable, and I think there's enough information to sustain an article given the sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The names and authors of the references are clearly typed out, and those are definitly reliable secondary sources. It may be possible to find those books somewhere, read them and expand the article.--Kylohk 11:22, 24 May 2007 (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.