Talk:Nancy Stone

British Overseas Territories Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability, sources, etc.[edit]

I came here to remove an unreliable source. One of the two sources that was used here, "USA International Business Publications", is not a reliable source. In many cases, "their" books are merely reprints of Wikipedia articles.[1]

This leaves the article with one source.[2] Unfortunately, the book in question does not have a page 2455 (it's 678 pages long). A Google search of the book seems to find "Nancy Stone" on page 245, but the closest thing there is a reference to "Polynesian stone" Pages 243-247 do discuss Pitcairn Island, but has nothing to say about the topic.

This leaves the map, which does show "Nancy Stone" off the southeast coast. The image is sourced to "TisitiMatthias Schlüter - Eigenes Werk (own work) ISBN 3-00-003929-5". The ISBN doesn't show up on any databases that I can find. The main Pitcairn Islands article does not use the map and makes no mention of "Nancy Stone".

A few maps do give a name to the feature, "Nancy's Stone". At the very least, then, a move seems to be in order.

Removing the remaining source leaves an unsourced stub. The few apparently reliable sources I can find tell us: It is a 40 meter long stone off the southeast coast.[3][4]

Basically, I think we have a non-notable geographic feature here. I don't really know of anywhere to redirect this as no articles link here and I cannot find any that should. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld: As the article creator (a while ago), I don't know if you have anything that might be helpful here. It looks like your editing re the islands was limited to creating a few stubs one day and moving on. I know next to nothing about the area myself (all of it dubious and from one novel...). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical features are notable, we have full articles on 40 metre wide islands/rocks. It is verifiable. However if a full article can't be written it might be better creating a List of islands and rocks of Pitcairn.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing your new source because it is another of "International Business Publications" printouts of Wikipedia articles. Compare page 6 of the book with our Pitcairn Islands. They give a publication date of Janary 1, 2012. Our version from December 28, 2011 is essentially identical.

My point is not "it's small, let's ignore it". My point is more along the lines of your suggested redirect. I'd suggest an expansion to the list at Pitcairn_Islands#Geography and/or building a list at Geography of the Pitcairn Islands. At the moment, it's just a list of the islands. The only reliably sourced info we have is name, relative location and approximate size. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mention here My intention with these was really to try to address systematic bias and have articles on the geography of Pitcairn which a lot might otherwise neglect. List of geographical features of Pitcairn with a tabled summary might be the best way to go, but I didn't see anything wrong with starting named features on a map.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]