Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahaaha Rocks

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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaaha Rocks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GEONATURAL Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Zealand and Islands. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability outside of name and location, which is insufficient. GraziePrego (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my original vote- this article is now significant enough to meet notability. Now voting keep. GraziePrego (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:SIGCOV found outside of database entries. NotAGenious (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding RS for the place. "Ahaaha Islets" is a search term, also search "Motuhurakia islands ahaaha" 1. And see google scholar 2. Lightburst (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to give it a go referencing. I uncovered that the Ahaaha is part of The Noises. Removed the orphan tag after linking there. They are 130 million years old. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My last post here. Thought I would ask if @GraziePrego and NotAGenious: can take another look at the article after I have added references. Thank you and have a great weekend. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be great to get a second opinion on the searches done to see whether this subject is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage to establish notability. The sources above are just passing mentions within coverage of other topics with no content that could be used to write an article. –dlthewave ☎ 04:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of the references added since nomination are even remotely sufficient or appropriate. The only thing we have here is basic existence and location, with nothing else about this particular group of rocks. Even an image was added inappropriately -- it appears to be of a different, nearby group of rocks, with a caption added conflating the two. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean about conflating, the commons image is titled by the uploader "Ahaaha Rocks". You state that the article is existence and location, with nothing else about which makes me think you have not read it. Lightburst (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title of an image on Commons is not a sufficient basis on which to make that claim. Even the description doesn't mention the Ahaahas, but a separate nearby group. The best specific identification in that article is the map from the NZ gazetteer, which indicates that there are exactly three such rocks that make up this group. Can you identify which of the three in that picture are the correct ones? Even if you could, it would probably be OR. And "which makes me think you have not read it"...I certainly have, and I've looked at the sources in detail, the only ones that even mention the subject of the article only do so in a most basic existence/location manner. Have you? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image. According to the description, the view is "The southern Noises Islands, looking south towards Auckland" which would put Ahaaha Rocks between the camera and the islands. The rocks are not visible anywhere in the foreground. –dlthewave ☎ 01:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At this time, this meets WP:GEONATURAL, as there is sufficient verifiable information in the article. Call it a WP:HEY, perhaps. —siro χ o 01:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does any source discuss these rocks in a way that meets "... provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", as specified by GEONATURAL? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been significantly expanded since nomination and that condition is met multiple times over. —siro χ o 03:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the sources are about the purported subject of the article...you can't claim significant expansion on a WP:COATRACK. Can you even point to one source that's more than a passing mention/coordinates? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEONATURAL easily. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? None of the sources even remotely discuss the topic beyond existence and location. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources in the Etymology section discuss the origins of the word "Ahaaha" but do not mention the Ahaaha Rocks. There's currently a talk page discussion about whether or not these should be included, but regardless of that outcome they do not contribute to notability. –dlthewave ☎ 00:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that point. I believe GEONATURAL is met without the etymology section. —siro χ o 03:18, 16 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.