Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog and Bitch Island

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 keep. Salvio 09:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dog and Bitch Island[edit]

Dog and Bitch Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From what I can tell, this island no longer exists. It does not appear on recent satellite imagery or on the GNIS site(GNIS link was broken). I think it's entirely possible that this "small, marshy island" has been swept away by hurricane(s), as some recent edits claim. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Contrary to the state of Maryland listing, there were two islands, and that's what GNIS says too. A 1963 aerial shows both, and then they gradually shrink, so that somewhere around 2007 they disappear entirely, though the topos mindlessly continue to apply the label even through they show nothing there. There is a newly created island from dredging spoil a bit NE of the old location, and there was talk in 2013 from the Corps that they were going to put some of the spoil on the old Dog and Bitch islands, but apparently it didn't happen. I personally don't think every little spot of land needs an article, but I don't know that the info I've found is enough to justify notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. WP:GEOLAND says that named natural features are often notable if there are enough verified sources. I found a Geological Survey Bulletin [1] that speaks about some geological features and an article about adding sand to restore the island [2]. Normally I don't think two sources are enough but I'm confident we can find more if we keep looking. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: That Geological Survey Bulletin appears to be from the 60s. To clarify, I'm suggesting deletion on the basis that this island(s) no longer exist, not that they never had existed or were not notable. The article from 2015 is an interesting read, but edits from 2018 & 19 suggest the islands to be gone. Obviously Wikipedia edits are not the best places to find information about the existence of geographic features, so I'll probably call the MD Archives tomorrow and ask about the current existence of the island(s) to see if their website is still up to date. AviationFreak💬 03:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not temporary. Wikipedia does not delete because the subject ceases to exist. Historical geography is important too. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Gene93k; per WP:NTEMP, an article doesn't lose notability because the island no longer exists. The sources I posted were to address the notability of the article. I think we have enough sources to show it is notable, per WP:GEOLAND. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 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.