Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunset Island

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 Keep - Named geographical place, and nominator indicates willingness to withdraw. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Island

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

Non-notable private island, owned by private citizen. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no references or statement of notability. Web doesn't show any good content.TCO (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not so sure about this. It's a real, named island, and as such maybe ought to be kept under WP:NGEO. Some facts about the island's history as farmland for the keepers of the nearby Colchester Reef Light are mentioned in the article about the lighthouse and are verified in New England Lighthouses: A Virtual Guide[1][2]; I'm not certain about the RS status of that source, but it does seem to be cited in a lot of our lighthouse articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how this meets NGEO. I'll not deny that Colchester Reef Light is notable, and this island should certainly be mentioned there, but notability isn't WP:INHERITED. If the OR content were removed there would be no content, and even with the OR, this is no useful information in the article. Why shouldn't this be deleted and made a redirect to the lighthouse? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a geographic feature per WP:NGEO and WP:5P - Wikipedia is a gazzeteer as well as an encyclopedia. Being privately owned does not render an island unnotable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to withdraw my delete. I don't have a large picture on what the threshold for notability of a location is (are street corners notable?) If other users feel it meets the Wiki norm, fine with me. (Just being honest on my level of knowledge...not being a pushover.) TCO (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (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.