Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popponesset Peninsula

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. Feel free to (1) Propose merges on the appropriate talk page; (2) Improve the article; and/or (3) Speedy renominate for deletion. Missvain (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Popponesset Spit (neé Popponesset Peninsula)[edit]

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

Not sure what a "spit of land" is, but this fails WP:V and contains WP:OR. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Popponesset, Massachusetts. It's a Spit (landform) here, not sure it needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 06:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But it isn't there. The landform described in the article, separating the bay from the sound, is labelled Little Thatch Island and Thatch Island on the very map that you just pointed to. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge entirely unsourced - OR. Fails WP:GEOLAND. A spit of land, indeed. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Popponesset, Massachusetts. A type of peninsula, in this case showing a poor WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 09:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Banner:Your comment is a poor AfD response. You vote for merge without giving a reason and then you accuse me for doing a "poor WP:BEFORE". No one (yourself included) has provided a source mentioning a "Popponesset Peninsula". So either provide a source or strike your comment.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you had taken a few minutes to look up what a "spit of land" was, you had your answer. Now you give the impression that you AfD'ed it because you did not know what the article was talking about. The Banner talk 16:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do not have a leg to stand on yourself, note. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The people blithely opining merger clearly haven't looked for sources either, otherwise they would know that this landform is called Popponesset Spit (not Peninsula) and its changes in shape have been studied going back to 1787 as it comes and goes over the years. Find the 1988 U.S. Department of the Interior report on CBRS UNIT C17 and you will find a lot of information on the geology and history of this landform, specifically, with maps. Uncle G (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact "Popponesset Peninsula" does not exist means this article should be deleted regardless (in other words it fails WP:V, my original argument). Perhaps someone can make the argument that there is enough sourcing for Popponesset Spit, but that is a separate article.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is this article (which even describes some of the hurricane problems, which sources, there being more than one, go into in more detail) simply renamed to the right title with the ordinary editors' article move tool. Please get a grasp of what requires the administrator deletion tool and what does not. Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If an ordinary editor just moves this as you suggest, it creates a redirect that should be deleted because it promotes the use of a name that doesn't exist. This clearly is not now nor ever has been a peninsula.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now you're reaching. That's not a reason to delete an article, and AFD isn't how we discuss redirects left behind after a page move. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really, I read the article again and it actually does not refer to Popponesset Spit either. This article is actually some type of WP:SYNTH. The spit is basically a sandbar, no body lives there. Yet the article says Much of the peninsula is occupied by Popponesset Beach and the remainder is largely residential.. So the author combined the spit with something else to create the term "Popponesset Peninsula".--Rusf10 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The author got something wrong, that is fixable with ordinary editing tools. We are not constrained to not correct it, and what you've just done is quite foolish. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Ignoring all the petty argument, there are no sources for this name. None. Looking at both the topos and the nautical charts, for once they are in complete agreement: the town of Popponesset is at the southern end of Popponesset Bay, which is almost closed off from the sound by a long spit called, in every source, Popponesset Beach, when it is labelled at all. Adjacent to the town is Popponesset Island from which it is separated by Popponesset Creek, and at the far end of the beach (really a barrier island) is another small island called Thatch Island. Searching for Popponesset Peninsula produces no book hits and nothing but clickbait for regular web searching. And there's nothing surprising about that: Kamchatka is a peninsula, the Peloponnese is a peninsula, but this is basically a sand bar that happens to stick out of the water. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Then try looking for the right name. I have told you what it is. It adds nothing at this point to say that looking for the wrong name yields no sources. The right name does, several of them, and I've even pointed to one already. There's a 48-page U.S. Army Corps of Engineers paper from 1993 that gives Popponesset Spit in the second sentence of its abstract. It really is dead easy to turn up stuff with the right name. Try it. It's even easy to turn up that name starting from "Little Thatch Island" on Reywas92's map. I simply combined it with "Popponesset" and the name "Popponessett Spit" came out as the very first Google Books search result. It took about a minute. It's that easy. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This spit is a great place to find seaglass in my experience, but it's not anywhere near notable enough for an article. Because the current title of the article is a neologism, there is no need for a redirect from this title. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:HEY Article has been recast and renamed.Djflem (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Popponesset Spit and keep Popponesset Peninsula as possible search term since the spit is a peninsula.Djflem (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- First, moving an article during an AfD is against the rules. Second, Popponesset Peninsula is unacceptable even as a search term, there is no such thing, all references to that name must be deleted.Rusf10 (talk)
  - Talk:Popponesset Spit. See Wikipedia:BEFORE (clearly inadequate) C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Djflem (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Citing rules? Learn them: Wikipedia:EDITATAFD READ: Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator. (Would have been happy to do so, but like fly on shit, was reverted 2x). Also see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (TAKE IT to TALK, where a discussion was opened) and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, they are useful. Djflem (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - A spit is a peninsula.Djflem (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, Rusf10, almost every single thing that you've said so far in this discussion has been wrong. You've got the purpose of AFD wrong, what one can do in AFD wrong, how to fix this article wrong; and you even reverted someone who made the article better, making it worse again, in the very way that you bemoaned it being wrong above, putting it back to the title that you said was wrong. That was an especially daft thing to do. Please apply some thought. You are getting a lot of things wrong, and actually outright using editing tools to make the encyclopaedia worse after someone has improved it. Uncle G (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, you are wrong. It is wrong to change the topic of an article during an AfD. The topic of the article I nominated was "Popponesset Peninsula". It This is what it looked like This so called "Pennisula", not only included not only the spit which has the official name of Popponesset Beach [1], but also a residential area. Then Djflem comes along and changes both the topic and the name of the article in a deliberate move to confuse the participants here. Anyone who comes the discussion now has no idea what they are voting on. The right thing to do would be to add content relevant to the article's topic (not a new topic) and then make your case. It is also wrong as it has been asserted here that a peninsula and a spit are interchangeable. The name change was not just a name change, it was a topic change.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not a vote. People are not voting. It has been perfectly fine to rename and fix articles during an AFD discusssion for many years. It was fine to do so back when I first wrote the Project:Guide to deletion and has been fine, and a widely-used practice, in all of the years since. You continue your streak of being wrong with everything that you write in this discussion. Please apply some thought and learn how Wikipedia works. Djflem did not confuse anyone. But you were quite foolish to revert the fixing of a subject name that you yourself disagreed with. Uncle G (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now well sourced per WP:HEY and passes WP:GEOFEAT as the spit. Recommend keeping and going through with the move, which isn't explicitly against the rules at AfD, could also be merged in the worst case scenario. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 25 May 2021 (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.