Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasant Point, Wisconsin

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. Sandstein 16:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Point, Wisconsin

Pleasant Point, Wisconsin (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)

A physical point (geography), not a notable community: [1] Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pleasant Point is a community of summer cottages, and once had a large hotel as well; this article from the 1960s explains its history up until that point. The hotel has a bit of history of its own, as this book explains its establishment, and it was part of an incident in 1923 in which Jewish customers were allegedly told they were not welcome, which the owner then denied. This record from 1993 shows that it was still an inhabited and named community at the time. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  So it's a neighborhood that fails GEOLAND2, being part of the Green Lake community? There are summer cottages surrounding the entire shoreline of the lake. Perhaps this history can be elaborated on what's already mentioned of hotels burning down in Green Lake (Wisconsin). Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to Green Lake (Wisconsin) where the Pleasant Point hotel is already mentioned. Lakes often have named points, coves, bays, beaches, etc. that serve as local landmarks but are not distinct communities, and these are best covered as part of the overall area. –dlthewave ☎ 00:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but it is notable (in the GNG sense) as an actual "point" on Green Lake rather than as a community. Here is a historical reference, page 5, from the county website. Here is another historical reference, using the term as you would any other point on a shore rather than as a neighborhood, or even the resort that was located at the point. If you look on the map, you will see a slight outward bend to the lakeshore. This is what is meant by "point." It is still there no matter what you call the neighborhood. In other words, one should expect the name to persist as it is a feature on the lakeshore. Here is a postcard depicting the point, from wisconsinhistory.org. Many other historical postcards can be found on Google Images by searching for "Pleasant Point."--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it exists on the map. People can make a postcard of literally anything, I'm not denying it doesn't exist. But which of these are significant coverage, and which precludes putting this minor feature of the lake in the article about the lake per GEOLAND#4? Reywas92^Talk 01:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The postcard I linked to from the historical society website and the entry in the historical book on the county website are significant coverage. books.google.com/books?id=AmxIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2 considered alone is deficient, so this Chicago Tribune article, this book on page 382-383, this book, this book, and this book makes up for it in that they discuss the resort named after and located on the point.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Passing mention of the hotel, passing mention of the hotel, short history of the hotel, passing mention of the hotel, and passing mention of the hotel. WTF are you saying is notable and should be the article's topic? The hotel, the geographic point, or the present residential area? Separate topics sharing the name does not make them all into one notable article, nor does this justify the page's current duplicative status. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Begging the question is a logical fallacy. These sources are more than just passing mention, and notability in the past is good enough for our current policies.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per sources provided that satisfy GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Could you please specify what exactly satisfies GNG for you and should be a (redundant) article? The generic former hotel already discussed at Green Lake (Wisconsin), the geographic point that's part of Green Lake, or the section of the Town of Brooklyn, and which of these sources precludes covering the topic in one of those articles as they already are? Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll admit, at first look the sources looked like they met GNG, but upon closer inspection all but one, I beleive, are moslty passing mentions. However, I'm staying keep for the time being because per this government website, it is classified as a populated place. Per GEOLAND#1, isn't this a legally recognized, populated place? Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've had a lot of US geography deletions recently because the GNIS classification of "populated place" isn't actually a reliable one for the purposes of determining whether something passes GEOLAND, and many of these articles were mass-produced stubs based on this database. It's no longer really considered a reliable source for basing an article on. SportingFlyer T·C 23:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for letting me know. I only watch a few delsort categories so I was unaware. It would be nice if there was a provision on the page excluding that particular site. I'll hold off on my vote for a little longer to further evaluate. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • • the point is marked on the county soil survey map.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a very technical delete. Based on my research, Pleasant Point is a subdivision which gets its name from a hotel which burned down during the depression (and the first article I found noted it did not "solicit Jews," sighhh.) The hotel probably got its name from a physical point on the lake called Pleasant Point. The point on the lake itself, like many small physical features, isn't notable enough for its own article and could probably be merged to whatever article we have on the Green Lake lake. "pleasant%2Bpoint" This article clearly shows Pleasant Point is not considered a separate community, but is understood to be within the town of Green Lake. You could write an article about the hotel, but most importantly, this isn't that article. This is an article about a subdivision which clearly fails WP:GEOLAND (or GEOFEAT, whichever it is.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not uncommon for resorts to sell off some or all of their land for development. I'm assuming this happened here. So it comes down to whether one can equivocate between the point, (which was named prior to the resort / hotel as best as I can tell) the later resort, and now several subdivisions or developments on the site which use the name Pleasant Point. This area appears to have also been a development even during the resort era: [2].--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, but when that happens it's typically considered a subdivision and not a community. That's why I'm a technical delete - this really is not a community, the GNIS is not reliable for determining whether something is a community, and it does not serve our readers to imply that it is - but the information found here, if put into a coherent article, should be kept in some form. However it's almost all about the resort - after the resort burned down, the land was subdeveloped. (I'm not a merge because there's nothing in the article to merge.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  An alternative to a "technical delete" would be to move this to Pleasant Point (Green Lake). The article could encompass whatever happened at Pleasant Point (shallowest water on the shore of Green Lake, resort, cottages, and presently two subdivisions). I agree that Pleasant Point is not an unincorporated community, or at the very least has not been an unincorporated community for decades.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd just start a new article in that case, as there's nothing correct in this article to move anywhere. I'm not sure the geographic feature, the point, is notable on its own. The hotel might be. That's why I think this one's difficult - the article's clearly not notable, but there's something here that is place-orientated and notable. I'd personally start by adding to one of the Green Lake articles and splitting if it becomes unwieldy. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe Point Dume could be a model for other point articles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL that's a huge promontory designated a nature preserve and state historic landmark, while this is merely a small area of this lake's shore that this rounded inward instead of outward. This lake alone also has a Swan Point, Blackbird Point, Sugarloaf Point, Lone Tree Point, and Oakwood Point. Sources discuss there being several hotels on the lake at that time; none are individually notable and as SF stated may be mentioned in the general article. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  History of Lake Wawasee is a good model for this type of topic. Historic resort areas often have various business establishments and named places that receive moderate amounts of coverage, but they rarely stand on their own and are best covered as part of the overall history of the area. –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I hadn't seen that one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The history of the place seems reasonably clear now. WP:GEOLAND states "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." That would be Brooklyn, Green Lake County, Wisconsin. One might instead merge to the lake, Green Lake (Wisconsin), but, either way, this is not a matter of deletion. The policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're really suggesting a merge. SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew Davidson.4meter4 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 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.