Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hay Island (Connecticut)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. MBisanz talk 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Island (Connecticut)

[edit]
Hay Island (Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is one of the smallest and least interesting of any geographic feature even in the tiny town of Darien, Connecticut where it's located. A Google Maps search for "Hay Island, Darien, CT" [1] will show it's a spit of land that extends 1,000 to 2,000 feet off of a larger peninsula. There are tiny peninsulas all over the place on the Connecticut shore, and like almost all of them, there is next to nothing that can be reliably sourced about this one. Oh, we do know that a rich guy, William Ziegler (a fine person by all accounts) lived there before his recent death, and he named a holding corporation after Hay Island. It's very expensive land -- I'll give it that -- but that's not unusual. Violates WP:N, WP:RS and it's been a magnet for vandalism in the past (check the history). I'm an inclusionist, but there's no hope for a good article on this one. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - To the town's article. Is there a conflict here? No need to AfD this, just be bold and redirect it. Yah! :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: perfectly decent geo stub. Plenty of reliable source coverage available, see Google Books [2], GNews [3]. Previous vandalism is not a reason to delete the article. Nor is size or lack of "interestingness". Baileypalblue (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having web pages show up on a Google search results page isn't enough. Neither of the searches you point to leads to any sources giving any encyclopedic information on the subject. The GNews results page tells us who lived on the peninsula before they recently died and the fact that the place has been used as a kind of boundary for state shellfish regulations. There is no evidence anywhere that this topic will ever sprout an actual encyclopedia article. We have no sources that delve into the topic with any "significant coverage" and no reason at all to think that we'll ever find any. Watching the Hay Island page to prevent further vandalism is a drain on the time and energy of volunteers. If this is a "perfectly decent geo stub" I can produce 800 more from the shoreline of Connecticut on more significant geographical features -- and that's no exaggeration. Just go to Google Maps and follow the coastline. -- Noroton (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have undone inappropriate non-admin close done far too early. No comment on notability, needs to run. StarM 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Geographical features like this are generally notable and sources do exist to expand this article (this for example) --Oakshade (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, sources do not exist. I've looked. Did you read the source you cite? It actually says nothing at all about Hay Island peninsula itself but only gives a brief description of the cove that lies to the north of it, and it fits the definition of inadequate "trivial" coverage given in WP:N. Not every geographical feature -- brook, hill, reef, rock, what have you -- is worth a Wikipedia article. Noroton (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am in agreement with Baileypalblue. I don't think that a compelling argument for deletion has been made. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no compelling argument has been made that this spit of land is notable enough for an article. After looking, I haven't found any reliable sources offline or online that provide any information. Even geographic features should have some prominence in some way. I don't expect to find any sourcing on it because it's an insignificant mound of earth surrounded on three sides by water and topped with a mansion -- a description that fits almost the entire coastline of this county. Can anyone tell me why this particular insignificant piece of land deserves an article? Does every other 20-acre tract on the planet deserve one? Believe me, I'm not unsympathetic to the existence of articles about notable subjects in Darien, Connecticut. I think I've created most of them. My user name is the same as the section of town that this mound of earth is sometimes called a part of. I could create 30 articles about subjects, many of them geographical, from this same town that would be more notable, reliably sourced and longer than this one. But they wouldn't be encyclopedia articles, they'd be permanent stubs, because there just isn't enough reliable sourcing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gazeteer. Nobody who follows a link to get to this Hay Island "article" will fail to be disappointed by seeing only a few sentences, at most, ever. There's not even any information here worth merging into another article. Noroton (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Places are inherently notable, I wish I could find the link that mentions this. I'll hunt for it. --GedUK  13:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the following would help, but the fact that there is nothing in policy specific to geography means that general guidelines like WP:N should apply:
      • Wikipedia: Notability (geography) (just an essay): The lack of an official charter and legal boundaries and other documentation means that we will have to weigh the quality of non-official information on a place to determine notability. For example, a named subdivision that takes up part of a county, but has no formal legal boundaries, will be notable if evidence can be shown of substantial non-trivial information about that subdivision.
      • The article looks like a dictionary definition, to me (at least the verifiable parts of its two lines and four short sentences). Here's a relevant passage from Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (a policy): All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way. Wikipedia should not have single-fact articles. This seems to apply to stubs that aren't dictionary definitions.
      • From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (also not a policy or guideline): Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as lakes, rivers, mountains, mountain passes, etc., are acceptable. [...] City streets are contested, but minor streets are not generally acceptable. Most numbered roadways are acceptable, but should only be created if they can be described beyond the route itself. Major, unnumbered streets and roads beyond the level of a side street or neighborhood roadway may be created, but are not guaranteed to remain, as outcomes have varied. The map shows this is not a major geographical feature. The Google map has a miles/kilometers key, so you can see just how small this place is. I quoted the passage about streets and roads because this mound of dirt is a lot like a minor road. For anyone reading this, there is probably as much notability and information about your nearest street corner than there is on this spit of land. How low do we want to set the bar for the significance of an article topic? -- Noroton (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as now referenced article will always remain a stub, but that's okay. A merge to the Darien, Connecticut can be discussed on the article's talk page, AND THEN one might consider a redirect, if at all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that actual WP:N policy matters to the closer of this AfD, because this article simply doesn't meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The only thing actually sourced in the article is the fact that Hay Island exists and its north shore is on Ziegler's Cove. Of the only two sources that could be found about the island, The U.S. Coast Guard book only talks about Hay Island Ledge (a rock, apparently just below the surface and a few hundred yards offshore) and Hay Island Ledge bouy. I did a search of that book and found absolutely nothing on the island itself. The second book, a guide to the Long Island Sound shoreline, mentions where Hay Island is, and that its north shore is on Ziegler's Cove. Every single other bit of information under the "Hay Island" heading in that book is about Ziegler's Cove. Which has it's own article: Ziegler's Cove, which is not up for deletion. I think I may have read a few lines about Hay Island in a book on Darien history. There simply is no reason to believe that there are any sources, or any collection of sources, that provide more than a trivial amount of information on this topic. Topics that have no hope for more sourcing than this are supposed to be deleted. If anything is non-notable, this is it. -- Noroton (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sourced the island being the home of William Ziegler III (deceased), the family of which all that Ziegler stuff in the area is named. Actually might be a nice article about William in the offing, as he's done some notable things. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've looked into it, but he just doesn't appear to be that notable. Lots of fine people give their money away to good causes, buy up companies with it or pay off the taxes on large estates with it, especially in this area. The information about him does add to the article, but not in a way that makes the article actually notable. Long Neck, the peninsula that Hay Island is attached to, is actually more notable, but despite the fact that it's mentioned (briefly) in local histories, I've been reluctant to start an article because I don't yet have enough sourcing. On a lighter note (I don't mean for it to be snide) here's a proposed history section for the Hay Island article, to reflect it's actual notability (closing admin, please feel free to skip, although someone might want to include the Kensett information in the article):
The history of Hay Island, beyond the fact that it has long been owned by the Ziegler family, is unknown, even though the history of the surrounding area is known. In each era of history, notability has passed by this spot. Siwanoy Indians were known to have populated the shore areas more heavily than inland, including spots within a few miles of Hay, but whether they settled on Hay Island any more than anywhere else (or at all) is unknown. Colonial settlers made Long Neck and other nearby peninsulas into common areas for growing winter corn or keeping cattle and other animals by fencing off the land connections of the peninsulas, but whether Hay Island was then attached to Long Neck is not known. Colonists straightened out their legal claims to Long Neck in the 1680s by effecting a legal land purchase from local Indians for an unknown price. The Town of Stamford, which then owned the property, quickly divided it up into private lots, but it is unknown if Hay Island was a part of any of this. During the American Revolution, Tories from Long Island would raid Darien, and stashed loot in a cave about 1.5 miles northeast of Hay Island in a spot known as "Tory Hole", but whether they did anything with Hay Island other than to row past it is unknown. Large estates were built on Long Neck in the 19th century, including Anson Phelps Stokes' estate at the southern tip of Long Neck. Andrew Carnegie spent two summers at Stokes' estate, but it is not known if either Carnegie or Stokes ever visited Hay Island or ever paid much attention to it or even saw it. Stokes' estate later became a Roman Catholic convent and a school for girls where Eunice Kennedy Shriver and Kathleen Kennedy were schooled, but there is no record of either of them running off the school grounds and visiting Hay Island. It was not along the route from the nearby Noroton Heights railroad station. Prominent 19th century artist John Kensett lived on nearby Contentment Island with artist Vincent Colyer and his wife, and Kensett painted all of the surrounding area. He depicted Hay Island in his Long Neck Point from Contentment Island in which Hay is a smudge of distant trees near the middle of the picture, neither hauntingly distant, as is Long Neck Point, nor close enough for a detailed depiction, nor colorful like the sky or water, so that it is one of the least prominent parts of the painting. Charles Lindbergh, his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh and their family lived about 1.5 miles to the northeast of Hay Island, and Lindbergh family members may have sailed or rowed small boats near Hay Island, but there is no record of that, either. In fact, as one considers the people and events at further and further remove from Hay Island, more and more notable history and current importance can be found in the town, county, state and nation that Hay Island is in, but none of it appears to ever associate itself with Hay Island, one of the world's gazillion insignificant, quiet retreats, as notable as a Typical Brook in the Amazon Rain Forest, a Stretch of Sand Dunes in the Sahara or a Patch of Ice in the Antarctic. Or perhaps the spot can be best compared with 11 Downing Street [OMG there's an article on that!!] or 1598 Pennsylvania Avenue, which appear to have narrowly missed numerous associations with historical notability. Hay Island is larger than 1994 WR12, an asteroid, but the island has never been lofted into space, as of 2009, and therefore poses no potential threat to planet Earth — although the island's tiny size and the wealth of some of it's owners, present and potentially in the future, the possibility cannot totally be discounted. It is rumored that an appropriate historic plaque [4] has been posted somewhere on the island, but no sources could be found for this, either.
I believe the above, almost all of which can be sourced, is all that can actually be said about the notability of Hay Island. That is, that it doesn't have any. Why don't we wait for some famous person to buy it and do something to make it notable? The chances of that happening are not zero. -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2009 (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/Hay_Island_(Connecticut)&oldid=1089734981"