Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Bass Rock (3 in Massachusetts)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bass Rock (Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts, Bass Rock (Ipswich, Essex County, Massachusetts), Bass Rock (Norfolk County, Massachusetts)

This VFD applies to these three articles as a group. They're all descriptions of exceptionally minor rocks located off the coast of Massachusetts, USA; see them on nautical charts: [1], [2], [3] These aren't true islands; one never breaks the surface of the water, one is underwater at high tide, and one is so minor it isn't named on some detailed charts. The fact that they have a name does not make them notable; mariners give names to endless numbers of rocks and other minor features; these names serve as communication and navigation aids for boats operating in the local area, but aren't otherwise notable. Some rocks are notable, of course; Fastnet Rock is one; but most aren't. Finally, these articles are short stubs; I suspect that there is little more encyclopedic information that can be added about them. CDC (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Moving this uncompleted nomination here. No vote for now. Denni☯ 18:45, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
  • I type slowly... CDC (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - The islands are federally recognized and designated as islands in the state of Massachusetts, you can reference this information on the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS.) There's a link directed to the GNIS on any one of the Bass Rock articles. Also, Bass Rock in Norfolk County is marked with a buoy as an isolated danger, it's nicknamed or otherwise called "The Spindle", and on or around that particular Bass Rock lies a diversed marine ecosystem. At first, I might think of such islands as these as insignificant, too insignificant enough to be mentioned on Wiki. Although, if a geospatial satellite photogenically and geographically records and make measurements of such islands as these using tax-payer money, the man hours it took to record these into government datatbases, such islands as these with their designated names appearing on nautical maps and perhaps various other maps, people giving it another name and/or nickname to it, visually marking the presence of this particular island with a buoy as it seems to pose a significant isolated danger to passing vessels in nearby busy marine traffic areas, an important marine ecosystem existing on and/or around it, & etc. then such federally-designated islands as these must be of some significance, because the federal government, various government agencies, and various peoples and organizations sure do think so. Another point I would like to make is that islands of any "significance" evidently plays an important role in maritime claims, boundaries, and/or disputes for political entities. An example would be that the Pacific island Kingdom of Tonga was able to expand its jurisdiction, laws, and its national boundary by many nautical square miles into the Pacific Ocean from the point of the Minerva Reefs in 1972, a small and "insignificant" reef island that is barely above water during low tides. In addition, the Minerva Reefs was almost a widely controversial issue of interest in 1972, before the Kingdom of Tonga laid claim to the reefs, an American businessman seriously tried to convert and claim the island into an independent island country, called the Republic of Minerva. This reminds me of a common quote that I've heard many times before, is that "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Also, There's an arctic island and/or "rock" off the coast of Greenland that is an issue of a long international dispute between Canada and Denmark. The tiny uninhabitable island and/or "rock" is called Hans Island. Both countries has claimed Hans Island as their own, claiming that it's part of their country's soil and boundary. The dispute has become ever more significant, with both countries sending official government spokesmen and military personnal to and/or on the island, erecting their country's flag into this seasonally-unfrozen barren island and/or "rock." The international dispute still remains officially unsolved. UniReb 19:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Minerva Reefs and Hans Island are included because of the territorial disputes associated with them. But those three rocks are just rocks, they have nothing to speak for it. It is up to the article to assert its justification to be included. If that can't be done, be well rid of it. Wah! Pilatus 13:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a need to be rudely grotesque such as your "Wah!" outburst, it's not personal, just trying to make a defense for the subject as best as I can. Please try to act in a professional manner. Also, if these articles gets deleted then it surely will perpeturally make most island lists on Wiki incomplete. UniReb 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are passionate about islands. However, equally passionately I question the wisdom of splitting the information in Wikipedia into atomic stubs that will never grow beyond their present size. Case in point: Anuxanon Island southeast of Cedar Pond in the village of Lakeville, Massachusetts. Why not put them all into the Lakeville entry and leave redirects? Then at least people can have a more detailed idea of the area without clicking back and forth. Pilatus 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless some kind of notability can be established. Sdedeo 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My parcel of land in Queens is recognized by the City of New York; can I post an article about it? No. Can we post it because "it exists"? No. Because it has a name? My cat has a name, and NYC recognizes it in its existance by its vaccination record; can I post "Paul's Cat Mrs. Lightbody"? No. Reign in this Wikithink that everything mentioned in any book any where is notable. Proof of notability is the burden of the author, not the voters. Paul Klenk 21:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an extremely rude and grotesque comment, which is most definitely uncalled for. As I said before, it's not personal, please refrain from pure sarcasm, this discussion and all Wiki discussions should be held in at least close to a professional manner. I know how everyone has the right to act in any manner they desire, but it doesn't necessarily give them moral and ethical right to act so ignorantly amongst other individuals. Please act in a close to professional manner as best you can, it will surely help with your diplomacy skills which might proof valuable one day. Thank you! UniReb 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge all into one article, Bass Rock. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Bass Rock already has an article, about a somewhat more notable island in the UK. Shimgray 19:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, then merge into Bass Rock (Massachusetts), per Sean Curtin below. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; or merge as above, they were significant enough for people to go and survey them. Incidentally there is no policy on notability. Kappa 22:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:MUSIC has a minimum standard for bands. Pilatus 14:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete They're freaking rocks! They have been surveryed, photographed, and buoyed not because there is something intrinsically exciting or wonderful about them, but so that people won't run into them in the dark. Those who need to know about these rocks won't be consulting Wikipedia for the information, and who else gives a beaver's backside? Denni☯ 22:58, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• delete all . Notability not established. There are thousands of millions of small rocks jutting out of the world's oceans, most of which are listed and recorded as they are potential shipping and boating hazards. But they are not notable just by being. If they were important sites of wrecks, or seabird colonies, or notable for some reason, I'd suggest keep. Sabine's Sunbird 23:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. No vote yet, but I want to point out that we have articles on thousands of "freaking rocks" called asteroids (see Category:Lists_of_asteroids). I find it hard to see how a rock that is hundreds of millions of miles from earth is more deserving of an article in an encyclopedia than a named geographic feature jutting out of a local navigable waterway. Most of those articles are no more detailed than these three articles. -- DS1953 00:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • We do not have articles on "thousands" of asteroids. We have articles on a small handful of notable ones: the closest, the largest, the earliest known, and so on. The vast majority of obscure asteroids may be lucky to be named in a list. I have no difficulty with articles on notable rocks such as Alcatraz Island or Percé Rock, but some anonymous outcropping that is merely a hazard to navigation and of interest only to navigators who have better information on their charts than they can get here does not, in my mind, rate an article. Denni☯ 02:14, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
    • First of all, I was very careful to state that we have "articles on thousands of asteroids" (which is clearly a fact) rather than "thousands of articles on asteroids" (which may not be true yet, but I don't feel like counting). We have articles on the first 450 and a smaller percentage of the other 90,000 identified asteroids. Even apart from that, we have 200 lists of asteroids. The lists appear to be very complete and I question the statement that "The vast majority of obscure asteroids may be lucky to be named in a list." They all appear to be very lucky, indeed, then. -- DS1953 16:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmmm - "articles on thousands of asteroids". Now how would =most= people interpret that statement? And I consider 450 out of 90 000 a handful. Nor are there 200 lists of asteroids, there are somewhat over a hundred. Many of the articles are on people associated with asteroid discovery or research. There are several lists on asteroids because one single 90 000 item list is beyond the best browser's capability. Finally, bringing up asteroids as an excuse for keeping these rocks is a red herring. I am of the opinion that 450 Brigitta does not need an article either - the information it contains is so limited that it could easily be handled by an annotated list. Denni☯ 19:03, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
• Delete as per User:Sabine's Sunbird. Failing that, merge somewhere suitable, maybe the county that they are located in. Pilatus 01:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until such time as the Paul's Cat Mrs. Lightbody article is a featured article. Nandesuka 05:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Rock the casbah. Gamaliel 05:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect These are real rocks, that someone might concievably look up. Since we have the information, we can easily afford to merge these into one article, possibly with some others, and keep the information. I'd like to ask for a moratorium on this one to have a chance to merge the rock articles into one worthwhile article. Trollderella 09:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, merge and redirect to create Bass Rock (Massachusetts). -Sean Curtin 01:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Bass Rock (Massachusetts). -- DS1953 16:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • But these are three distinct islands, are they not? Wouldn't that just be like having "List of islands in Massachusetts named Bass Rock"? -- Visviva 09:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all back into Islands of Massachusetts, unless content can be expanded beyond a mapdef. -- Visviva 09:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep content, but merge and redirect. Paul August ☎ 00:40, September 7, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.