Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Group

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 merge to Adolphus Channel. By our attributaion rules we cannot merge without a redirect without a history merge taking place so if users are still unhappy with the redirect they need to come and speak to me on my talk page with some solutions to this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manar Group[edit]

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

This is a difficult AfD. The article is written by a well respected contributor See edit, but at the same time multiple editors edit & edit are unable to find support for it. As we all know from Wikipedia:Verifiability; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The article is in Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 which is the oldest category of articles on Wikipedia tagged as needing references. While we can all beleive that the content is true, and hope that someone will come along with references, to meet WP:V there needs to be some reliable sources to meet Verifiability for the article to continue to be included in Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a suitable reference can be found. I've looked for an online reference and found very little which isn't a copy of the article and nothing which is a reliable source. However, there may be available material in print or in an Australian government geographical database. If such a source can be found, then my vote will change to keep.-gadfium 17:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Merge to Adolphus Channel, but drop the name Manar Group as unverifiable.-gadfium 17:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless this can be verified. This group is islands doesn't appear in searches of Geoscience Australia's place name search which strongly indicates that it's not an official name for a group of islands and searching Google maps also doesn't produce anything. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worse is that I cannot find it in the Queensland database hosted by DERM — Search for "group" and nil results for "Manar". A search of Trove returns nothing of relevance. billinghurst sDrewth 03:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Merge to Adolphus Channel per the below discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or failing the weight of policy merge into Albany Island, Queensland (so as to create a redirect not a strait 'delete' - a close reading of material around the naming of many features in the area suggests nomenclature bound queensland and federal authorities might not be up with the Torres Strait Islander Coordinating Council - or vice versa - that does not remove the capacity of places to have names Satu Suro 00:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview?pi=nla.map-vn3791390-e would provide argument for development of the Albany Island article Satu Suro 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should remain with an unreferenced tag. Being absent from google hits or a list is not a basis for deletion. Appearing in a category of these older article is not a reason either, it was probably there because it was supposed the fact was added from a reliable source; nobody is disputing the veracity of that. There is a lot of historical content like this here, useful facts contributed in a culture of good faith and trust. Providing references for every fact has been a strong trend since then, but is still overlooked when it is by active and established users. I don't see the advantage in deleting it. This seems to be a retroactive application of current inclusion policies, for new contributions, to delete something that is otherwise unobjectionable. cygnis insignis 06:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and oppose merge: it makes an unreferenced fact a confusing reference. There is a difference between unverifiable and unverified, a local not knowing is not evidence the user made it up, and this very likely to be one of the many things that are not found via google. The ref will emerge one day, someone will add it because they want to, it is more important to do that sort of thing. cygnis insignis 18:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming you mean opposing redirect and/or the use of "Manar Group" as it fails WP:V. Much of the content currently in the article is actually about Adolphus Channel so is appropriate in that article. If so I concur, Oppose Redirect and use of "Manar Group", but do support moving content related to other articles. Jeepday (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per place name search as proposed above; possibly taken from an old map or somesuch; A redirect would be useful if any ref. can be found- the islands included in the group are adequately catered for (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
Comment - this is not as speedy as the delete arguments might think - there is - as long as some smart ed comes along and does not read this carefully (as they are wont to do) - that the name comes from either the creole - Torres Strait Creole or one of the local aboriginal languages of the northern cape york area - in which case arguments for the usual databases - imho - they are a complete and utter waste of time and deny the possibiluyt that a print source that is not on google might povide an answer - so - the possibility of providing a source (or two) - may take a day or so - if some one closes this at this stage - they clearly have not read the text and deserve more than a trout slap Satu Suro 13:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objects to holding the closing of the AfD for a couple days to give SatuSuro a chance to check other resources for sources, and I doubt anyone who is voting delete would have an objection. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me to holding the AFD for a while to enable sources to be found.-gadfium 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you the civility is surprising compared to the way some afds I have seen - it might take into the new year the way things are going - and anyways if it is not a keep - i would still like to see a merge of the info wherever possible to the Albany Island article please as it is the main island of the group anyways Satu Suro 11:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pile on, I've got no problems with putting this on ice while there's a search for references. Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CSIRO marine reseach has no doubt about the existance of these islands, though they refer to the area as the Adolphus Channel and surrounds so I wouldnt be adverse to a merger of the two articles. Gnan garra 11:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any referenced material that is appropriate for another article should be copied into the article(s) it is appropriate for. If SatuSuro does not find references for the term "Manar Group" for these islands, a merge/redirect would not be appropriate. But any referenced content that would be appropriate for another article would be appropriate regardless of the outcome of this debate. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the existence of the islands, the problem is that none of the sources found appear to use the name "Manar Group" (or Manar anything). The appropriate target of a merge is probably Adolphus Channel.-gadfium 19:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 05:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Life is short and so, it surprises me to note, is the total quantity of human time available to be devoted to Wikipedia. Given that the originator of the article appears to command respect for their scrupulousness, cartographical information is often available only in undigitised form and there is no indication of anything untoward about the article, it would surely be more sensible to devote attention to articles that are more obviously in need of it. Opbeith (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opbeith. Some people like a challenge, and that can be reason enough. billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would seem the person who lives close by - has been unable to ascertain an easy found references - so I would repeat my comments that I consider the Adolphus Channel to be the better domain for any work to date Satu Suro 12:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to close, per the comment on my talk page and above, as well as local research [1]. Remain unable to verify, much content is appropriate for the Adolphus Channel article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – unfortunate, but they are the rules. Can I comment (ask?) that it should be closed with a removal decision, that it is made without prejudice as no reference information, not through lack of notability. Jeepday … thanks! billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking at the comments above by User:cygnis insignis, and trying to frame a fails WP:N argument, we know that Adolphus Channel is notable and one of the islands Albany Island is claimed ^{[citation needed]} to part of the group, is notable. So it would be hard to image that a group of islands encompassing both of these would not meet WP:N. No one can tell what the future will bring so I would think just one or two WP:RS published prior to the 2006 publication in Wikipedia would support both WP:V and WP:N. References published after 2006 would be questionable particularly if they were minor mentions, due to the likelihood of the "Manar Group" article on Wikipedia being the original source. The possibility that there are several old published works supporting the article but out of reach to us, is real, but WP:V specifically excludes that rational not whether editors think it is true. (or may be true). Jeepday (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2011 (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.