Talk:Phallic Rock

Note

Don't delete because its real! If you click on the coordinates and then the google earth link-- Zoom in, tilt the map and see the shadow created by the structure. This is indeed very real.

If the article title is inappropriate, I will be happy to change it.

Caddymob 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a hoax. This formation is 1/2 a mile from where my parents live. This formation is either within or on the boundry of renowned golf course The Boulders (http://theboulders.com). Please look at the site and you will see formations with similar morphology and geological characteristics. I have more images of the Cock Rock formation at the following link:

http://picasaweb.google.com/caddymob/CockRock?authkey=mfdQHReqA20

Caddymob 06:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This rock formation may be known to locals, but it is hardly notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia as is the Garden of the Gods. Liberal Classic 07:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged this as a delete, but not a speedy delete. My sense is that it will probably be deleted, as this geologic formation is not notable enough to rate inclusion. It doesn't help that "phallic" is not spelled correctly. Liberal Classic 07:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I change my mind.

I think this article is spam for the Boulders resort hotel. Speedy delete. Liberal Classic 07:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--I have removed the link to the Boulders-- I only provided this link to show more pictures of the area, thus proving these types of rocks and formations are common. I have no affiliation with the resort and provide no endorsement.

--Indeed there are many great sites of with rock formations in the west. Liberal Classic referenced the Garden of the Gods, and there are more such as Capitol Reef National Park, Arches, Escalante Grand Staircase, etc. However, because there are other places, that does not warrant deletion-- each of these locations are unique and within different proximities to people across the world. This is a unique structure and while not interesting to Liberal Classic, perhaps it will be to another wikipedia user.

--I have also spelled Phallic correctly, my mistake. Again, if Liberal Classic or any other user finds the title inappropriate, do suggest a new title.

-- Perhaps the picture included does not give a sense of scale. Should I add approximate dimensions?

Caddymob 07:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate because it is not notable. It is not important enough to be in an encyclopedia. This particular geologic formation has no historical or scientific significance. Your article does not give supporting evidence of notability. Pictures of a rock that bears a passing resemblance to the male anatomy hosted on an image server do not constitute verifiable or credible sources. It's simply not encyclopedic in nature. So what if people in Scottsdale, Arizona call it Cock Rock. It's not important or significant. It's just a rock. Liberal Classic 08:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Indeed it may be just a rock, but many may look at an entry like Myrmeciinae and say it is just an ant. Some may look at the Grand Canyon and say its just a big hole in the ground. There are no documents of this rock because it may be largely unknown. Documentation has to start somewhere, and Wikipedia is a great place. I have provided detailed information on locating the formation and urge anyone in the area to visit the rock and confirm its existence. Sure people in Scottsdale and Carefree may know it as Cock Rock- but perhaps someone visiting from Houston, Texas or Tokyo, Japan would like to see the formation. Without documentation somewhere, they may never do so. It may not be important in the sense that this formation will not cure cancer, but the humor and laughter that may be derived from seeing it can have beneficial effects on human health. I posted the link to my image server to provide multiple views of the rock as Liberal Classic first flagged it as a hoax.

Caddymob 17:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caddymob, I was not the person who tagged the article as a hoax. Someone else did that. At first I flagged this article as nonsense or spam, and when you removed the commercial links to the resort hotel, I softened my stance and changed this article to a proposed delete, down from a speedy delete. On the other hand, you have deleted tags from your article several times. Please do NOT do this.

I looked at your source Black Mountain Conservancy Geology Article and it does not mention this particular formation. You have not demonstrated the notability of this particular rock formation. There are no documents on this rock because it is not particularly important. Therefore, it does not rate incusion in the encyclopedia. Just because this rock is a funny shape, does not mean it should have its own encyclopedia entry.

Wikipedia is not a travel guide.

Liberal Classic 05:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- I deleted the flags because it says I may do so: "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." I have adhered to these guidelines by both improving the article and including edit summaries and posting in this talk page.

-- The particular formation is not mentioned in the Black Mountain Conservancy Geology Article, you are right. The reference is clearly to the type of formation and how it is formed. Liberal Classic at one point claimed this was not a noteable geological formation, so I provided information on why it is indeed notable.

-- The specific formation, Cock Rock is not mentioned anywhere that I can find. I am creating a new reference so people across the world can see it. Indeed, Wikipedia is not a travel guide - but surely there is travel related information. I am not soliciting visitors to Carefree. If you take such issue with these kinds of posts, perhaps you should flag pages like Lakes Entrance, Victoria - there are no references, and it seems to only provide travel related information. Furthermore Liberal Classic, by your logic, it's just a beach as the Grand Canyon is just a big hole. These are your personal feelings and are not objective complaints.

-- I would like outside opinion on this matter as it seems Liberal Classic is on a personal vendetta than has nothing to do with the content of the article. Wikipedia is not a battleground

Caddymob 07:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have not gotten this across, but you have not substantiated the notability of your subject. Your article does not give any evidence why people across the world should see this rock. This is what is needed to justify an article in wikipedia. Your references to the Black Mountain Conservancy is fine, as is the book you cited. However, these references to not draw any particular distinction to the subject of this this article. They are sources on the geology of Arizona. Cock Rock has no real scientific importance. It is not widely known as New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountain. It just doesn't rate being in Wikipedia. It is not a personal vendetta against you or anyone else. Unless you can show how this geologic formation is important, the article should be removed from the database.

People definitely know about this place. The group of kids at my school called it Penis Rock though. I live in the Rolling Hills Carefree, and we had to drive passed this everyday to get home from school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.10.199 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like, I will this article in the official deletion list, so we can get some outside comments. Liberal Classic 07:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]