Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

COVID-19 pandemic in Door County, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not seeing anything in this article that would indicate the COVID-19 outbreak in this one county of one U.S. state is standing out from all the rest. I would assume the article's notability is based on certain geographic factors, e.g. places of interest, locations of hospitals, distance from certain areas, etc., but none of that is being illustrated here. And judging by the table of case statistics by county in the COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin article, Door County is in the lower-middle tier of affected counties, so I'm not seeing what exactly is so special about the number of confirmed cases and deaths it has. Love of Corey (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- article meets GNG due to substantial coverage in non-local media sources: Chicago Tribune, Milwaukee Journal-sentinel, Wisconsin Public Radio, The New York Times, WBEZ: Chicago's NPR News Source, and Iron Mountain Daily News in the UP, a 140 mile drive to the county seat in Door County. These stories, which are linked to in the external links section, were driven by concerns about property rights when non-permanent residents were asked to stay away from their seasonal residences. (In the northern part of the peninsula, most property is owned by people from out-of-state.) As for Door County being in the lower-middle tier of affected counties, the reason for this has been speculated about in several media sources. It is thought that the relatively high rate of masking has helped. Compared to COVID-19 pandemic in Columbus, Ohio, this article has more non-local coverage and compared to COVID-19 pandemic in the San Francisco Bay Area, this article has a smaller volume of non-local coverage.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then the property rights story should be merged to the broader COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin article. If not, this article should be renamed at the very least. The content as it is now is aimed exclusively at this angle and not any broader concern about COVID-19 spreading throughout the county. Love of Corey (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The geographical distribution of cases was scattered to begin with, and remained that way to the present. There is no story about cases "spreading" they way you might think of it. Each tourist or out-of-county commuter ads to the risk. People live, drive, and get infected all over or nearly so.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then where's the COVID-19 story for this article if geographical distribution of cases is scattered? I would expect the COVID-19 problem to be absolutely crippling if an article on this small county would deserve the benefit of notability. The way you describe it makes this event sound WP:ROUTINE, and therefore, not notable. That leaves the property rights story, but it seems more worthy of being merged to COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin, unless you can expand the content with a trove of more recent coverage of that angle. Love of Corey (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"more recent coverage of that angle"---please elaborate on the angle you are referring to.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not seeing a reason to delete here. There are naturally lots of articles about the pandemic in particular geographies such as NYC. This is just another one and doesn't need some special justification. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this article and articles like the one you just cited as an example is that these kinds of articles are talking about major cities/metropolitan areas.
And those are just the articles focusing on U.S. cities.
Here, Door County is only moderately populated compared to other counties in Wisconsin. Its largest (and only) city is home to less than 10,000 people. According to the article itself, it was the 45th county to report its first case in the state. Wisconsin has 72 counties, so by that point, more than half of the state's counties had reported at least one case each. Not exactly notable compared to being in the first five or first ten counties to report a first case.
The only thing worth noting about this article, as noted by Epiphyllumlover, is the property rights controversy. Given what we have now for this material, that can be merged to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin article, which should have enough bulk to take it without any WP:UNDUE concerns. Love of Corey (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a pandemic, it's everywhere, not just major cities. Other distinctive regions merit articles too – see COVID-19 pandemic in the Isle of Man; COVID-19 pandemic in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base; COVID-19 pandemic in the Navajo Nation; &c. Myself, I am on the other side of the Atlantic, in London, but am quite familiar with Door County and interested in how things have been going there. The OP has no business trying to censor this notable aspect. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course COVID-19 is everywhere, but we're not going to try and break it down by every region and subdivision known to man. We primarily break it down by the notability of the region affected. Isle of Man is a crown dependency (the UK equivalent of a U.S. territory like Puerto Rico (which also has its own article, as do all the other territories, BTW)), Guantanamo is a military base with extremely special significance in U.S. history, and the Navajo Nation is a Native American territory, essentially its own country. Door County is none of those things.
If there was something special about the spread of COVID-19 in the county, then yes, this could merit an article of its own, but I don't see extensive coverage of that angle here. The article is more focused on the property rights of non-permanent, out-of-state residents. Perhaps if the content was expanded and the article was renamed to properly reflect the topic, then it could be kept. But if an expansion cannot happen, it should be merged to the main Wisconsin article, because the amount of sourcing right now doesn't look substantial enough to support an individual article spun off from the broader pandemic, and the main Wisconsin article could cover it better as a subsection relating to responses. Love of Corey (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I added referenced material concerning the high rate of masking and a physician's analysis of the possible effect of this would that meet your standard for "something special about the spread"?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the material in question comprises multiple paragraphs of content with multiple sources, and not just a single paragraph documenting anecdotal stories and a statement by a physician, that kind of information would be better suited for Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Love of Corey (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin, content is local news that is mostly in line with what happened in every community in the country. We don't need separate articles for every small county. Reywas92Talk 23:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Door County has received non-local coverage including from New York and Chicago.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article on Wisconsin. Other stuff exists is not a valid reason to keep, Door County is not a major metropolitican center. Wikipedia is not news, and breaking down the pandemic by county level will lead to lots of unneeded news level coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Door county (prior to the pandemic) received 2.2 million visitors every year. How many counties with Door County's population receive that many visitors? During the pandemic the figures are maybe half, but still that makes it different than most counties.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the article on COVID-19 in Wisconsin. Literally every county in America is getting local coverage for COVID-19. There's nothing unique about it and there is zero good reason to have separate county articles about COVID-19. Unless there is something particularly unique about COVID-19 in said county. Which in this case there isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that Door County has received non-local coverage including from New York and Chicago.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I think they should make a difference, but for whatever reason the non-local sources are in External Links section. So, technically they don't count. Since they aren't being used as references. At least, I think. Although, they do exist. So, likely I'm wrong and they just don't work anyway. Personally, they don't work for me because pretty much everywhere is getting coverage of COVID-19 from everywhere. At this point you could probably pic any random county in America and it would have non-local coverage about it. Hell, I live an extremely in-significant county in the grand scheme of things and a few weeks ago there was an article in Bloomberg about a couple of religious fanatics here not wanting to wear masks, because supposedly they infringe their religious rights or some crap. I don't think my county should have an article about COVID-19 here though. Even with Bloomberg deciding to do a story about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed one of them (the NYT article) is also being used as a reference, so I don't know why the others wouldn't be used as references too. From my experience, external links are mainly supposed to be used to redirect any interested readers to additional information that otherwise cannot be used as actual references in the article. Love of Corey (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG, has non-local sources. The only thing I see needing improvement is properly citing the non-local sources in the article, but thats easy copyediting for a bored wikipedian to do. Deleting wouldn't fix the issue, just remove it. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What could we do to properly integrate them, though? It doesn't look like any of the "External links" sources have anything new to offer for the article. If anything, that section should be purged entirely if the article is somehow kept. Love of Corey (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The comments about the article being supported by non-local sources have prompted me to look at the list of references. Out of the 28 references provided, as of this writing, there are only a grand total of three sources (or an estimated 10 percent) that are national and/or from out-of-state (The New York Times, Petoskey News-Review, and Marine News). If you count the external links section as references, that makes six out of 34 references (or an estimated 17 percent) that are national and/or from out-of-state, the additional three being Iron Mountain Daily News, Chicago Tribune, and WBEZ.
So, while non-local sources are indeed being used, there's not a lot of them, and they're not being used extensively. For example, an article I've been working on since its creation, Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot, features 101 references as of this writing, of which there are at least 45 (or an estimated 44 percent) that come from non-local, out-of-state, national publications. I'd expect around that number of sources to be used in this article if I believe this is a notable topic. And moreover, the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot article is still being updated by the day with recent sources. I noticed that, at least as far as I can see, this article's sources have all been published from March to May, with only one outlier source coming from yesterday. For a sub-article about a massive, ongoing pandemic that is close to affecting every corner of the Earth, there's not a lot of substantial coverage that indicates there's an ongoing problem of particular importance, COVID-19 or otherwise.
Note that I've excluded some Wisconsin-based sources; while some of them are certainly non-local, as Wisconsin-based publications, I believe they're more likely to cover a matter located elsewhere in Wisconsin than a source that's from out of state would. In particular, Green Bay, the headquarters of recurring source The Green Bay Press-Gazette, is located in Brown County, which neighbors Door County to the southwest. It's no surprise to me that there's an abundance of coverage coming from that publication. Love of Corey (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources in the San Francisco coronavirus article are local, with Los Angeles significantly accounting for the non-local ones
There are two articles from Chicago and one from New York for this article's topic. You only need three to get past AfC. Looking just now I found a coronavirus-topic interview with a Sturgeon Bay area farm family from a Milwaukee based publication that is not in the external links.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the San Francisco article is acceptable because San Francisco is a major city in the U.S. and a symbol of the country to a good part of the rest of the world. Door County doesn't have any significance in broader U.S. history, nor does it have any of that symbolism that would make a majority of the world recognize it as an American hallmark whenever they hear of it. Therefore, there wouldn't be any worldwide investment in knowing what happens over there, regardless of whether it is a hard-hit part of the country or not.
Also, please note that WP:EVENTCRITERIA says this, "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article."
So, what does Door County have that would cause many publications like The New York Times to revisit its situation days, weeks, months, and years down the line? People are always going to revisit San Francisco's situation because it's San Francisco. What does Door County have that would make me care if and when it keeps showing up in the news feeds? Love of Corey (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"what does Door County have...many publications"--a large number of out-of-state property owners from large metro areas.
"nor does it have any of that symbolism"--then what brings Japanese tourists to the county each year, and not just for cherry blooms? One of the wrote ja:ドア郡_(ウィスコンシン州). Or if it is not symbolic, then why were two farms in the county featured on postage stamps?
"majority of the world"--which hasn't heard of Columbus, Ohio either. A decent chunk of Eastern Europe (a generation ago, Western Europe) has an association with Door County due to the J-1 visa program, for example:[1]. A ship manufactured in Door County currently serves in the Mexican navy, and there is (or is planned), a public art display in a large Chinese city depicting Door County. Also, the southeastern part of the county part of an area that is is well known to Walloons in Belgium as the #2 largest Walloon speaking area in the US.[2] The inhabited island at the north of Door County is known to Icelanders as an Icelandic ethnic area.[3]
"any significance in broader U.S. history" The Cardy Site forced historians to re-write the pre-history of the central US. The Rock Island II Site is considered (by some relevant state employee quoted somewhere) as the most important archaeological site in the state. It was closed to visitors during the pandemic. Also, the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal helped Green Bay grow into a major city. Also consider the wartime impact of the ship manufacturing industry and the county's association with a Wisconsin state political dynasty.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm still on the merge side, I do find it rather carious that this seems to have gotten a lot of out of state coverage for whatever reason. I still stick by the example of my county not deserving an article due to being in Bloomberg, but the coverage this has gotten seems to go beyond that. Although, I don't want to make of it. Nor for the life of me I can't figure out why. Even reading the articles it doesn't seem like there's anything particularly unique about COVID-19 in Door County and it is a rather insignificant place in grand scheme of things. Other places must be covering it for a reason though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the COVID-19 pandemic. Of course out-of-state publications are going to visit other areas every now and then. It's just like you said. I'm pretty sure the Bloomberg article is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to outside coverage of your home county. Given the scope of this pandemic and Wikipedia's extensive, ongoing coverage, however, I would expect more than a dozen or two dozen national and/or out-of-state publications to have an interest in a certain populated area before said area could even be considered for its own COVID-19 article. Love of Corey (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"a large number of out-of-state property owners from large metro areas." Yes, but that would be for the property rights story. Is there anything special about the COVID-19 outbreak that could be covered at extensive length in this article, so extensively that it cannot be fit into the Wisconsin article?
"then what brings Japanese tourists to the county each year, and not just for cherry blooms? One of the wrote ja:ドア郡_(ウィスコンシン州). Or if it is not symbolic, then why were two farms in the county featured on postage stamps?" Sources on this information?
"'majority of the world'--which hasn't heard of Columbus, Ohio either." The most populous city of Ohio, and the 14th-largest city of the U.S.? I doubt it.
"A decent chunk of Eastern Europe (a generation ago, Western Europe) has an association with Door County due to the J-1 visa program..." From what you're arguing in that entire paragraph, you're saying this topic's "notability" is also rooted in the county's history with certain populations from certain countries. So you'd argue there should be a COVID-19 article for Hamtramck, Michigan, for example, because of its high population of Yemeni and Bangladeshi immigrants? Even if it's dwarfed in size by its neighbor Detroit, which is more suited for an article of its own because of its high population, which guarantees widespread COVID-19 cases?
"The Cardy Site ... The Rock Island II Site ... Also, the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal..." Do you really expect every American across the country to know all of that? If they're not teaching it in history books, then all of the information you just shared about Door County's history is not something that would be of great interest to the masses, only something a specialized historian or a private individual with a particular interest in Wisconsin history would know. In comparison to Door County, lots and lots of historic events have occurred in San Francisco, Boston, New York City, Columbus, Portland, and Philadelphia. There are simply too many count that these cities have their own articles on their histories (History of San Francisco, History of Boston, History of New York City, History of Columbus, History of Portland, History of Philadelphia). Door County doesn't have that kind of article.
Just because Door County is a resort area and a travel destination doesn't mean it deserves its own article. Other, more well-known resort areas and travel destinations in the U.S. don't have their own COVID-19 articles too, e.g. Las Vegas, Miami, Atlantic City, etc., etc., and I suspect it's for good reason. Love of Corey (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It seems like your making a lot of hypothetical and what-aboutism type arguments. While not saying much about the guidelines. Which really doesn't bode well for your position. Not that Epiphyllumlover's argument is completely solid either, but it's at least less obtuse (angle wise, not meaning "insensitive or slow to understand." Like, people would have go around a sharp corner to get what your saying and agree with it). --Adamant1 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said what needs to be said about the guidelines. They've never responded to that. Love of Corey (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I more meant it for potential voters. To be rhetorically successful you always want to be partly aiming your comments at them and the closer, not completely the person your having the discussion with in the moment. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Love of Corey (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Las Vegas, Miami, and Atlantic City aren't as dependent on J-1 workers--which dropped to zero nationwide this year. The publicity staff in Door County has prided itself on getting media coverage for everything for two generations now. Ever since they made it into the March 1969 National Geographic they have been trying to repeat it with similar accomplishments. Even when there was a 1971 scandal about faulty septic systems that was reprinted in papers across the Midwest--one way to spin it was that the publicity was good advertising. The DMO has ways to get coverage. Maybe it is connections, maybe they help fund the reporting. That might get explain the New York Times article, but it won't buy your way into Hoard's Dairyman. That coverage was genuine--and is national since Hoard's is a national magazine.
As for what happened at the Rock Island II Site, that is taught in history books across the US in a generalized sense--they mention Jean Nicolet and other French explorers which stopped there. Your typical national map of the US used in schools shows the Door peninsula, and maybe even Washington Island. What was found at the Cardy Site was first dismissed as not possible, but is now mainstream pre-history. Paleo-Indians hunting near the retreating ice sheets is commonly taught in a general sense. Sturgeon Bay hosted the 2015 Bassmaster's Angler of the Year Championship tournament--it is one of the top national sportfishing locales.
The majority of the world has heard of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Majority is a very high bar and too high to be appropriate here. If Wayne County had a Covid article I would vote support for keeping it. Maybe it will someday. Covid could be around for a while. Statistics tend to be reported by counties.
"I would expect more than a dozen or two dozen national and/or out-of-state publications"--- The San Fran covid article does not even have that, much less the Columbus, Ohio covid article. Your bar is impractically high. Three national or out-of-state articles is enough to pass AfC, three should be enough here. Door County has five--Iron Mountain, New York Times, Chicago Tribute, WBEZ, and Hoard's Dairyman. Looking at the Columbus, Ohio article I see one reference to NBC news titled, "Unreleased White House report shows coronavirus rates spiking in heartland communities". Columbus is mentioned in a list in that reference. I did not find any other such articles, so by that standard it would not get out of AfC.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - For "COVID-19 pandemic in [place]" articles, as long as there is indeed sufficient coverage to sustain an article, and that information would be too much to include in its entirety in a parent article, and as long as they're being updated frequently enough so as not to become harmful in their inadequacy, I find myself thinking that we should let them be for now and revisit how to combine/condense/whatever when it isn't such an important subject for so many people. Yeah, I know that "is someone updating them" isn't typically a reason to keep (or to delete), but it's a matter of pragmatism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only updates thus far for this article, at least ever since I nominated the article for deletion, are only about the case numbers, not for anything in the actual body. For an article about a COVID-19 outbreak in a certain area, there's a virtual absence of more recent information, not to mention an absence of documenting how exactly COVID-19 is spreading through the area, e.g. a "Timeline" section, like all the other COVID-19 outbreak articles. If this is supposed to be about COVID-19 spread, this article seems to have a lot of WP:UNDUE focus on the property rights of out-of-state locals. Love of Corey (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Door_County,_Wisconsin&oldid=986484628"