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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biruaslum[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 10:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. I had a look at the Ordnance Survey Landranger 31, and noticed that this is nothing more than a stack (geology) at the west of Vatersay. It's not an inhabited place - it's like, a rock that sticks out of the ground, and not a notable one like the Old Man of Hoy. If you've ever actually looked at an OS map, you'll know that there are hundreds of such named locations and especially in the less densely inhabited parts of Scotland, and only a very small percentage of them are notable. Fails WP:N quite clearly, and there is a lack of verifiable information about its subject to write more than a substub on. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable uninhabited geographical features. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was the creator of the article, and mistakenly believed it was a village. Epbr123 (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Islands, even small ones, are notable. --Eastmain (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough to keep, as above. Gary King (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, it's not notable enough to keep. It's not an island. It's a stack, of which there are thousands in Scotland alone probably. If Wikipedia had an article about every stack in Scotland alone, we'd be hopelessly overloaded with thousands of unexpandable permastubs. Do either of the keep voters actually realise the number of non-notable named locations (which need not be inhabited places or islands, they could just be the name given to a particular headland or something, and believe me, there are massive numbers of such locations that have names, yet nothing more) on any given Ordnance Survey map? This is completely, absolutely and utterly unexpandable. I urge you to reconsider.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some stacks are more notable than others e.g. Bass Rock, Ailsa Craig, Old Man of Hoy, Stac an Armin, Stac Lee, Rockall - all of these have some element of interest. In fact it's easier to find stuff out about these than some of the larger islands, which are more or less sand banks e.g. Baleshare. --MacRusgail (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The islet was deemed notable enough to be mentioned by two writers on the Hebrides; I've put the cites in--they're small but there, as is the rock. Long may the Western swell crash into this stub.--Wageless (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - mentioned by FT, which persuaded me. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Vatersay. Just because its named on an OS map, it doesn't make it notable. It is just a rock, with nothing of particular interest about it. And it looks like it is connected by land to Vatersay, so not a separate island [1]. --Vclaw (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (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.