Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rutland Archipelago

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland Archipelago

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

I think an article with the same content already exists? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutland_Island UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ Delete Rutland Island is a part of the Rutland Archipelago. @UNSC Luke 1021: In any case if it were a duplication of content the proper thing to do is tag it for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A10 not open an AfD discussion. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Striking until there is proof of existance. - Last edited: 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC) Change to delete. No evidence of existance/usage of term as a geographic feature. Jbh ^Talk 13:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what evidence is there that Rutland Island is part of the Rutland Archipelago, or even that a Rutland Archipelago exists? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rutland Island definitely exists, not sure about the archipelago UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Other than Wikipedia articles, I find exactly one hit for "Rutland Archipelago". Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a hoax then all of the contributions of HonorTheIsland need to be checked. They have created a lot of island articles in the last couple of days. I am surprised they have not shown up here.

The search function at GEONAMES is not working for me so I have not been able to confirm it there. Jbh ^Talk 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea anyway to check all his/her articles and verify the details. A month ago there was a row on Trinket Village] with clearly incorrect info added. And I do not remember how many unreliable tables I have removed. Unreliable as showing uninhabited islands with a capital and other settlements. In this case: I can not find any reliable source for the existence of the archipelago. The Banner talk 22:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rutland Island (though vice versa would work too); neither has sufficient notability independent of the other to justify two separate pages here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it does exist that would not work because we have several articles on its constituent islands which would make it pass WP:GEOLAND - Named natural features. If it does not exist then it should be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 14:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) I must ask again, what evidence is there that Rutland Archipelago even exists? Why redirect from what looks like a made-up hoax name? And of course Rutland Island is notable as an inhabited island, but this discussion is about the supposed archipelago, not the island. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the article by M. V. Portman (1899), A history of our Relations with the Andamanese he claims that the Onge tribe expansion outside of litle andaman island was the islands to the north of it, which were not inhabited, he called them Rutland Archipealgo. when onge tribe reached south andaman island, then they met hostility by other great andamanese tribes. Portman claims that onge people only settled in little andaman group and Rutland Archipelago. HonorTheIsland (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raj era books by the likes of Maurice Vidal Portman are discredited as reliable sources as being based on so-called scientific racism. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no firm evidence has been provided that this even exists. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment, because an article that already basically covers the subject exists, and barely anything about the island mentioned here comes up. There is a Rutland Island in Ireland, which has a lot of information, but the only info on the Indian Rutland Island is this page and some Indian travel sites UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struck and changed your "Delete" to "Comment" because your nomination of the article is, by definition, a !vote to delete. The only time, as a nominator, you would use another bolded !vote would be if you later think there should be a non-delete outcome. In that you would put the your changed !vote directly below your nomination statement. If everyone has voted "Keep" and you no longer think it should be deleted you write "Withdrawn by nominator" and the AfD can be speedily closed. If their have already been non-Keep !votes a withdrawal of is basicly a "Keep". You can place any changed !vote ie "Redirect", "Userfy" etc. below your nomination statement but make sure to give a reason becuase it, just like your nomination statement, is weighed by the closer when closing. If, in an AfD you did not start, you want to change your !vote you ~~strike~~ the original like I did above and underline the changed !vote and the reason for the change or new opinion Then sign at the end of your edited comment with something like Changed !vote ~~~~. See WP:REDACT for general information on editing your own comments. Hope this helps. Cheers. Jbh ^Talk 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did some diligent searching including the local government land maps and found no use of this term. It is indistinguishable from a hoax. - Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, as failing verification in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2016 (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.