Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scratch My Arse Rock

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 keep. v/r - T P 15:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch My Arse Rock[edit]

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

I don't see any source for this that doesn't derive from the Wikipedia article, and I don't think I accept the truth of Google Maps (which places this in a forest with little sign of rock). Drmies (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The place is on the topographic map. +mt 17:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice find, and a lot more convincing than the Google stuff I found. I cannot, however, access any kind of information pertaining to the site owner--http://linz.govt.nz doesn't pull up anything (that's from the readme). "govt.nz" certainly inspires some confidence--do you have anything else to offer? And while you're added, got any sources for the claims in the article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I'm considering taking off from my job for a year. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll keep my eye out at the library to get better info ... there's lots of books about Cook Islands at the Wellington Library (e.g. [1]). The Cook Islands are real nice; been there once (although not to Palmerston), and I'd easily go back. +mt 07:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Send us a postcard, while you're scratching your arse over there living the high life. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's real. I've found this listing for it. LadyofShalott 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This page claims as its source "National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA". LadyofShalott 03:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bingo! It's in the database you can seach here for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. LadyofShalott 04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK--do you have a button that quickly closes this as a keep? Good work, Drmies (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I won't close an AfD in which I've participated - even when it's a clear case of nominator withdrawal. I'm sure somebody else will come along soon and take care of it for you. LadyofShalott 23:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Mentions in a database don't equal in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of Wikipedia's explicit functions is as an almanac. I don't think we require extensive independent coverage on all geographical locations. LadyofShalott 15:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with the Lady. Now that it's established that it's a geographic location, noteworthy enough to be included on maps and in databases, it's pretty much a closed case, and no significant discussion need be found. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography isn't very active, but I'll drop a note there later: as far as I'm concerned, this is an instance of automatic notability. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you tell me where this "explicit function" is recorded? Also, we have had debates at WP:Scotland about the lengthy lists of articles about tiny settlements and the debate has always revolved around their notability rather than their existence. I am not aware of any policy that states that geographical locations, no matter how trivial, are granted "automatic notability". Curiously yours. Ben Mac Dui 08:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are times when something or someone is presumed to be notable regardless if it has in-depth coverage. If multiple, reliable sources say this place exists, then it should be kept. btw, from google maps, there appears to be people living on it. Bgwhite (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken you are looking at Palmerston and that the subject of the article being considered here is an uninhabited skerry. Ben Mac Dui 08:59, 16 November 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.