Kramer Rocks: JMWt ( talk ) 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  At very least this is a candidate for redirect, not deletion.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Formally moving to Keep or Merge .  Coverage of minor geographic features is part of the gazetteer function of the encyclopedia.  According to the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) , "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river."  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 20:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia does not have a "gazetteer function", no consensus has ever found that it does.  Wikipedia no more has a gazetteer function that it does a dictionary function (not least because gazetteers are a kind of dictionary ).  FOARP ( talk ) 21:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Really doesn't seem worth redirecting or mentioning in another article since we have zero coverage to establish WP:DUE weight.  – dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why on earth would you want to destroy a redirect?  If someone wants to find information on this feature, they should be redirected to a source that will help them.  Unless you are implying that the majority view is that these islands don't exist, "Due and undue weight" has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 22:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 1) These are not islands, they are rocks.  2) Simply existing does not mean they warrant an article or even a redirect, particularly when the resulting article will not contain any actual information about them.  Do we really mention every identifiable rock in a bay?  No, because to do so would be entirely WP:UNDUE .  3) The sole evidence for their existence appears to be some photos taken from the air in 1956-7.  I could not find anything at the location given in the article.  FOARP ( talk ) 13:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:UNDUE / WP:DUE relates to neutrality and has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.  Please stop using these alphabet soups without clicking through to see whether they are relevant to the topic at hand.  Espresso Addict ( talk ) 20:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:UNDUE : "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects ." (my emphasis).  WP:UNDUE is not only about points of view, it is also about coverage of extremely trivial aspects of a much larger thing, such as minuscule rocks in a wide bay.  FOARP ( talk ) 21:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - These are - at best - simple minor geological features that may be simple boulders sticking above the water some of the time, or not at all.  Mentioning them in an article about a bay with an area of hundreds of square kilometres would be entirely undue.  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it summarises what is said in secondary sources, it is not a nautical chart that needs to mention every single feature.  FOARP ( talk ) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete