Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelica 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.

Angelica Rock

Angelica Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Small private island that once had a windmill and large house; fails to meet notability criteria in

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Massachusetts, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems notable, because:

1. It was in the news in 2018: Bird sightings. (2018, Feb 11). Boston Globe Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/bird-sightings/docview/2000707677/se-2
2. Also this year Bird sightings from mass audubon. (2022, Jan 01). Boston Globe (Online) Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/bird-sightings-mass-audubon/docview/2615625560/se-2
3. It was the subject of this piece: https://www.westislandweather.com/angelicarock.htm
4. And this one https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/local/advocate/2013/02/28/angelica-rock-once-peaceful-retrieve/49063195007/
5. It's mentioned 8 times in this book, which has a page about it Mussel Watch Project Site Descriptions, Through 1997. (1997). United States: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects Assessment Division.
6. It's mentioned here as a spider habitat Edwards, Robert L., and Annabel D. Edwards. “Life History and Ecology of the Armored Spider Monoblemma Muchmorei (Araneae, Tetrablemmidae).” The Journal of Arachnology, vol. 34, no. 3, 2006, pp. 599–609. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149974. Accessed 13 Jul. 2022.

Comment Again I am left wondering if you did all the searches before nominating this one and all the others. CT55555 (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only articles where it is the subject of the content are a local news article about the island's sale, and the West Island Weather website. I would not consider the latter a

WP:SIGCOV about Angelica Rock to merit an article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The local news site provides significant coverage, I see no reason to say it is not reliable or independent. It is not simply about the sale, it gives the history of Dr. Aris T. Papas endeavours to turn the island into a residence, the windmill build etc.

I think source 5 above could also be considered significant, I used it to improve the article.

Please note

WP:GEOLAND

criterion 4, which says Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article.. We have more than the statistics and coordinates. So I think that is satisfied.

I've improved the article a bit today, I'm about to do some more. CT55555 (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has definitely been improved, but I still don't believe Angelica Rock has sufficient notability to merit an article. The only information specifically about it is that it's a one-acre property that once had an owner-made windmill. The fact that it has common beach wildlife does not make it any more significant. I don't think Angelica Rock's story is any more notable than the story of a private property that included a beach; the only difference is that it is on an island in this case. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I respect your argument. I remain of the opinion that it is notable. I think people are writing about it because it's an island, I think that provokes human interest. But the writing is dominated by one writer and it's not the most compelling keep argument I ever made. I thought for a while the doctor lived on the island, which would have made it a habituated place and therefore a clear pass at

WP:GEOLAND but he didn't get the buildings up, which doesn't give it a clear pass at GEOLAND. I remain thinking we should keep this. But I respect that it is a decision where sensible people might disagree. All the best, CT55555 (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete one writer creating multiple mentions of a place is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  He wrote multiple articles, not mentions. Also there are three sources and one is academic and unconnected to the other three. CT55555 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mentions within an academic source do not immediately confer notability; it isn't prominently featured in the spider habitat article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Mentions within an academic source do not immediately confer notability. It is not any one source that confers notability, it's the combination of them. CT55555 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per the current revision, this article is hardly even a stub anymore; there are four sources giving us a solid few paragraphs of text about this island and what's gone on there. There are sources, and the article has been improved. The existence of revulsion towards non-notable geostubs should not be taken to imply that all geostubs are non-notable. jp×g 22:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In light of recent improvements to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the updates definitely meets
  WP:GEOLAND. Skynxnex (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2022 (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.