Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outer Lands

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. Sandstein 13:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Lands

[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)

Seems not the be a widespread term. Other than one book, I don't see any other sources using this term. IMO, to be encyclopedic, it would have to be a common classification used by multiple sources. Given that we already have articles on the individual islands, I don't see any need to group them together like this.

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a use of Outer Lands ("Block Island is part of the Outer Lands region, a coastal archipelago,...") Less helpfully, this appears to be only a blog. This page also refers to the Outer Lands. I think this is enough to show that the Outer Lands name is used by a wider group than the book's author. I added the book as a reference to the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean, those are all really weak sources. The first one might be consider along the lines of a blog too. The only reliable source is the book.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: As neologism at best, per WP:NEO. Like the nom, I agree that there's no sign that this is a widespread term used in reliable sources, and I want more than a single author's neologism for it. Two or three blogsites don't cut it; show me strong cites from the likes of the Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, New York Times and the like. The same applies to the notion that this is a notable geographical topic, as Pharos believes: if that's the case, then where are the sources discussing it, and do they do so using this name? Ravenswing 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references I can find seem to stem from a single book. Maybe the book deserves an article, but this term doesn't. --Calton | Talk 10:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name is not a very common one, but the geographic topic is notable. It's not about the name, which is in use but not popular. It's the archipelagic region of the Atlantic coastal plain and terminal moraine itself that is notable, and it is referred to in a number of geographical and natural history contexts. I started this article 12 years ago, and I think it does bear improving with more sources, but I think it is worth salvaging.--Pharos (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is notable, where are the sources that talk about it? If the name is "not a very common one", why is it being used instead of a common one, as the claim that topic is notable implies exists? --Calton | Talk 23:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not finding much in the literature that discusses these islands and the cape as a grouping, historically or culturally, other than the Sterling source. There is some geological discussion of the region as a whole, though the islands and the cape were formed by different terminal moraines at different times. The best: [1], [2]. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as meeting WP:GEOLAND, although sourcing is not great. However, I don't see Wiki materially improved as the result of a deletion here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... the text of which is "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. 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." (emphasis mine) This would suggest the article fails WP:GEOLAND. Ravenswing 04:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've done the same as Calton. The only reference I've found to the name references that one book discussed in the article. SportingFlyer talk 08:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's a geology thing, of terminal moraines (sp?) from glaciers. It is useful to understand that Long Island through Cape Cod are formed the same way. I don't know how else to refer to these. It would be okay to move/rename to a different technical name if there was a different term from the geology literature, or some "common name", but that would be for discussion at the article's Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that name these particular islands apart from the Sterling book? If they are notable as a group in geologic sources, we should rename the page to the name given by those sources. I'm a firm delete since the only available source is that one book. It's also interesting Cape Cod is included, since it's only technically an "island" due to the building of a canal, which suggests to me there's something odd going on with this particular definition. SportingFlyer talk 06:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Continuing from my comment/vote ("Keep") before. It's a geology thing. It was covered in high school earth science class I think. I don't know, many years later, what the high school textbook was. I am not sure that "Outer Lands" term was used, but I don't recall a different one, and the concept was clear that these islands and peninsula (Cape Cod) were formed the same way, and that was a bit of an "Aha" moment making sense of the world. It is amazing how short is the time since glaciers were hypothesized to have carved their ways in the Alps and brought otherwise inexplicable huge boulders to rest in strange places. And it has been a nanosecond since plate tectonics was conceived of. --Doncram (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, Doncram. You're not at all a Wikipedia rookie. You know that the only way an article can be sustained on a subject is by producing multiple reliable sources giving that subject "significant coverage." You know that "I read it in some high school textbook years ago" does not remotely cut it as an answer; those sources cannot be merely alleged to exist, but must be proven to exist, and in nearly two weeks now no one's managed to do so. If you did read about the concept of a terminal moraine, by contrast ... there already is a Wikipedia article on the subject. Ravenswing 22:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so about "the only way"; there are lots of topics which are presumed notable, sometimes implicitly on basis that off-line sources must exist, including any populated place and any secondary school (although disputed). I am not checking whether Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) has already been argued about above or not.
Note that there is no way the article should be outright deleted, because Terminal moraine#Examples could serve as a redirect target as a decent alternative to deletion, which we should always strive for. Ravenswing pointed to that article, and it does already mention the Outer Lands. I still prefer "Keep" however as this is a pretty major geological feature, vastly larger than numerous small landforms we accept under geo notability grounds. --Doncram (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect, the information about outerlands in that article is unsourced too.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the past week or so, I have added many new sources that talk about the reality of this major geographical feature, and also several alternative terms that have been used in various sources. The question of notability is about the geographical feature itself (which has been demonstrated), not about the popularity of a particular name for it.--Pharos (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2018 (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.