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 as rewritten; I don't think a long close statement is in order, but for DRV's sake here goes: (1) it seems that everyone agrees that there was this island; (2) the community has said that geographic features are usually notable; (3) the only real objection is that this was created by a banned user; (4) we have two provisions in apparent conflict WP:CSD#G5 allowing for speedy deletion of materials of that sort and a statement at WP:BAN that it deletion is not required; (5) the article has been substantially redone by an editor in good standing. So, given that deletion appears to be permissive and not required, we have the authority to keep this, and now that it has been rewritten we should. 'nuff said and thanks to all who helped out here, because this was a policy discussion worth having, and we may continue to have at the talk pages of the two cited policy pages to resolve the apparent conflict in explicit terms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)[edit]

I believe this article qualifies for speedy deletion (under criterion G5) as the creation of a banned user (User:Jvolkblum) evading the ban. All substantial edits to the article are by socks of the banned user. However, the speedy deletion template was removed on the grounds that it appears to be a "seemingly worthwhile, problem-free article."

The article does indeed seem to be worthwhile and problem-free, but its creator is a user who has specialized in creating content that seems good, but turns out on careful examination to be artfully disguised garbage. Among the long-term disruptive behaviors for which this user earned his/her community ban is falsification of sources. This has included adding content that was copied verbatim from copyrighted sources but was inserted in articles with citations to completely unrelated sources (typically an obscure book title with a date from the early 20th century that is not available online), citations to plausible sounding sources that upon examination do not even vaguely support the content, and reference callouts that identify an online source as something completely different than what it actually is. Additionally, although the topic is superficially "worthwhile," close examination suggests that it's pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. My eyeball estimate from a map indicates that the island that is the subject of the article has a total area of less than 2 acres, and the main topic of the historical sources cited in the article has been disputes over real estate transactions.

The article does cite some sources that are related to the topic, but much of the content in the article is not associated with any reference callouts, and the sources cited don't necessarily support the information with which the citations are associated. For example, this 1848 history book is cited to support the sentence "When Louis A. DePau purchased Locust Island (now included in Glen Island) in 1847 and built his residence there, he established a chain-ferry between that island and Neptune Island for his own private use, landing at a dock on the west of Neptune Island." The book does exist, and it does state that Louis A. DePau purchased Locust Island, but it says nothing about his building a residence or a chain ferry, and it does not indicate that Locust is part of Glen Island (another source cited earlier in the article does document the name change). The following paragraph has extensive historical information, but the only source cited documents only that New Rochelle and Pelham Railroad Company and the New Rochelle Street Railway Company were established in 1885 and that a branch line to the Neptune House dock was planned; none of the other details in the paragraph are documented by that source. Based on my past experience with the banned user, I think it likely that the entire article is copied from some source that is not identified or cited in the article. In view of the fact that this is a banned user whose past offenses have included trying to pawn off copyvio content by inserting seemingly valid false references, I believe this article should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy on enforcing community bans by reverting edits, which states "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". If someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, but keeping the current version because it looks like it might be OK is, in essence, saying that WP:V and WP:Ban have no significance.

Finally, for the record, this is at least the third time this article has been created. Earlier versions that were deleted included Neptune Island (New Rochelle) and Neptune Island (New York). Orlady (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This AfD is latest in running vendetta of Orlady against New Rochelle area articles. As Orlady notes, it "seems" decent. Notability is asserted, clear. Orlady is wasting my, others time with this pointless AfD, put in deliberately just in advance of my posting a community unban proposal for the allegedly banned user, who in fact is one of perhaps many misidentified by Orlady as being associates of one former wikipedia editor. This verges on wp:pointy. I am inclined to consider opening an RFC/User behavior on Orlady's actions here and elsewhere. P.S. My response copied exactly from my response to another simultaneous AFD opened by Orlady on another New Rochelle article. It does not merit revising. If you oppose here, please also copy your response to oppose there, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (New Rochelle, New York) doncram (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, for the record, Orlady has elsewhere made claims that "Jvolkblum" (which is really perhaps several different persons caught up in one mess, only one of which has been banned) is entirely fabricating material, and then Orlady was proven wrong. Further, Orlady acknowledges the topic is notable: "If someone is willing to take responsibility for verifying the article and rendering it in their own words, that's fine, ....". I think Orlady's point is that she doesn't want to be the person monitoring this article for accuracy. The solution for that is for Orlady to drop it from her watchlist, not to try to force other editors to waste time with an inappropriate AFD. I say it is not necessary for anyone to revise the article in response to this AFD. Following logic similar to Orlady's, perhaps it is best not to cater to the unreasonable demands of Orlady, who may just want the article improved, but instead raised an inappropriate AFD. doncram (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -
- The island is geographic landform of New York state, falling under several sub-categories including Island of New York and

Long Island Sound. Numerous articles about minor U.S. islands exist that have never been challenged for notability. Some examples include: Davis Island (Connecticut), Conspiracy Island, Griffen Island (West Virginia), Rabbit Island (Rhode Island)

- The island is recognized as a 'New York physical, cultural and historic feature' by US Board on Geographic Names (BGN) Geographic Names Information System (UGIS) Neptune Island.
- The island's history dates back several hundred years. (Examples):
  - It was the site of "The Neptune House" which was a popular summer resort during the mid-1800's. (The firm Currier & Ives produced a print of the hotel.)
  - The US Government operated ferry service to & from Fort Slocum (on nearby Davids' Island) was run from Neptune Island.
  - Chain-ferries and ferries to Glen Island Park operated from docks on Neptune Island.
  - The bridge/roadway connecting Glen Island County Park to the mainland crosses the western portion of Neptune Island.
- Present day uses of the island:
  - Home to the Huguenot Yacht club (historic/ influential boating organization)
  - It is the location of the city park Neptune Park —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.221.194 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. The nom's description of the process of the editing actually confirms the notability of the topic. Believing that an article of a notable topic should be deleted because of faults of the creator and main editors is very ad hominem.--Oakshade (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Keep, but not "per nom". The nom was to delete the article. doncram (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nom wants the article deleted but only makes arguments that support keeping it. That's why the "Keep per nom".--Oakshade (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ delete G7. The points made above are very cogent, but I think as an overriding principle, we can't condone blocked socks of banned users even when they appear to be making constructive edits. No prejudice against an editor in good standing re-creating this article with different content, of course.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With multiple individuals arguing for keep here, and the request for G7 already denied, it's not a candidate for speedy deletion. Hence the regular deletion discussion. Wily D 12:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the "Speedy" part of my comment accordingly. My position remains as stated.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and S Marshall. Any attempt to verify the content through legitimate references would inevitably involve effective recreation of the entire content from scratch. As it stands, the article is entirely unreliable. AngoraFish 木 11:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the listed references and found a few points mentioned in the article, but *most* of the article can not be considered sourced. I find it interesting that it does not mention that it's not even considered an island [1] anymore, having been connected by a causeway and bridge so that recent mentions of it are entirely about "Neptune Park". I looked for other references for "Neptune Island" and found either the aforementioned listed references or other locations. I'm not quite sure what to make of the effort behind this article. If it's true, based on original research, I wish they would write a book. If it's a mix of true and false stories, why put so much time into it? Should it be deleted? I think it should be tagged, and most of the article moved to the talk page. dm (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this reference could apply to the entire matter, especially the title and the last sentence. dm (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. That title and last sentence are highly apropros to the entire matter, indeed! Thanks, Dmadeo. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete as coming from a banned user. This is what the banning discussion was all about and if we wanted to accept articles from that author we wouldn't have banned him. Them From Space 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a notable topic that happened to be created by a banned user is not grounds for deletion. WP:NOTABILITY makes absolutely no mention of articles created by editors that Wikipedia doesn't like as it is totally off topic.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case most of the article should be removed. The references do not support most of the text. dm (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The references do appear to support the text. As for the other text - "The island is located in the city's Lower Harbor and is situated between Davenport's Neck, Glen Island and Travers Island" for example - it's all verifiable. If it was required to delete all text that doesn't have a citation tag next to it then about 90% of all Wikipedia content would be deleted. Only contentious or controversial material that currently doesn't have a citation "should be deleted."--Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G5) as an article created by a banned user. The banning policy is clear on this—this person is not welcome here. ~~It does not and should not trump notability.~~ Notability does not and should not trump this important policy. MuZemike 00:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me clarify in regards to WP:BAN. Nearly all the content in the article was created by said banned editor. All other edits seem to be minor (i.e. not to be confused with "minor edit") compared to the first three edits in that article. Hence, I think this falls under the spirit of the banning policy and G5 as a result. MuZemike 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is an instance where our banning policy prevents the improvement of the encyclopedia, and therefore a suitable case for IAR. Very few banned editors actually continue to evade the ban by making good contributions; normally, a key reason for excluding them is that their contributions are quite likely to be dubious. This is different--there is a possibility that some additional sources might be needed, but the article is as well sourced and otherwise adequate as 99% of our local articles. Will this encourage the return of banned editors generally--I do not think so , as this is a special situation. We may need to discuss elsewhere how to deal with this particular individual. DGG (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply of Oakshade and DGG: The sources (which match everything I was able to find easily) do not cover most of the text as written. I'm an inclusionist, but as I found with the Thomas Paine Cottage when I rewrote it from scratch, leaving the pre-existing version in place was disingenuous, it almost seemed like the banned editor was enjoying creating content to prove their point that Wikipedia isnt accurate. I'm fine with having an article for Neptune Park. It's not really an island anymore. But it will be a very small article without most of the current text. If this editor wanted to really contribute in a healthy way, they would keep the article text to what can be sourced and they would not try to own the articles. In fact, the best way for them to move forward would to find some *other* area in wikipedia to help out in for a while. dm (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with a "very small article" on a notable topic. It just means it would be a valid stub. That's what stub notices are for.--Oakshade (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that this is relevant?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Contrary to the assertions that the sources in this article "appear" to support the text, I find that long passages are unsourced and there is little correlation between specific statements in the article and the sources cited to support those statements. Unfortunately, this has been typical of my experience with "Jvolkblum" socks. In this experience, the article content often is interesting, appears plausibly true, and is sprinkled with reference callouts. Upon examination, though, the references cited don't actually support the specific information to which they are attached. Sometimes in my research into articles such as this one, I've finally come upon the work from which the article was copied verbatim -- except for the addition of reference callouts to other works, sprinkled semi-randomly through the text. Because the affected articles have mostly been deleted, it is difficult for me to provide examples. Suffice it to say that the "Jvolkblum" socks are masters at introducing carefully disguised copvios into Wikipedia, and this article is similar in many respects to some other articles that ultimately were determined to be copyvios. --Orlady (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep unless material included is shown to be inaccurate, not merely unsourced. Being unsourced is not grounds for deleting an article. While being created by a sock of a banned user is, this article appears to have been a good-faith effort to produce a useful article. I'm not an expert on this subject area, so I can't be certain of the accuracy of the article, but it all appears reasonable to me. If somebody highlights more than trivial inaccuracies in the article, please consider my !vote changed to delete. JulesH (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per JulesH above. If the article were better sourced and shown to be accurate there seems no reason to delete just because a banned sockpuppet has written it. Ban sockpuppet again is a better solution. Some separation should be made between punishing users breaking the rules and the interests of a comprehensive WP. --Moloch09 (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The user who created the sockpuppet that created this article is still banned, but the user is agressive in evading the ban, including creating myriad sockpuppet accounts and editing from open proxies. The sockpuppet accounts, open proxies, etc., are blocked on a regular basis, but generally only after new content has been created. Effective enforcement of a Wikipedia community ban necessitates removal of the content added by banned users. Insisting that the banned user's contributions be treated as if they were good faith contributions only abets this banned user in his/her apparent goal of disrupting Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify As someone who has occasionally observed the Jvolkblum mess and disputes resulting from the same, I'm deeply suspicious of anything written by him/her, and even the significant possibility of it being him/her writing is enough for me to become quite dubious. Therefore, I believe it best to remove all content that can't precisely be sourced, without using ((fact)) and similar templates. However, nobody claims that this doesn't exist, and it's doubtless a notable topic. For that reason, it shouldn't be at all hard to write at least a good stub; and if we simply remove problematic content, rather than deleting and recreating, an honest user will be able to restore the good parts that have been removed. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Everyone who has contributed to this article is free to edit the article to remove the content that is unsourced and/or unencyclopedic. However, it is not clear that this 2-acre tract of land (my estimate; the land area is not given in the article and I have not found any source that documents it) that formerly was an island is "doubtless a notable topic." --Orlady (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IAR case - the article is good. The reason for which G5 exists is because banned users tend to post dubious material which should be removed in a speedy fashion - this is an exception to that. From WP:BAN:

“

This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user[...]

”

— neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then recreate as stub. Clearly the topic is notable, and Wikipedia probably ought have an article here. However, this is not just a banned user, but a user banned for subtle copyright violation and falsification of facts. In this case, being unsourced -- or sourced to questionable or unavailable material -- has the presumption of inaccuracy. Could all the details be checked out and proper sourcing done? Yes, with the same amount of work it takes to build an article de novo. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Serpent says: ~~Delete and recreate as a~~ stub. All our policies and guidelines are subordinate to the idea that anything we include must do more good than harm to the project. How much harm will it do to have a stub instead of a full article? Not much. How much harm will it do if the imbecile who created it goes and writes an op-ed on how inaccurate Wikipedia is, using this as his prime example? Far more. yandman 16:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (see comment below this one) it can always be recreated as a stub. Normally, I'd say that editing problems don't need to be solved with deletion, but this is a special case. Burn it to the ground and start over with information that is entirely sourced. I don't have any faith that the article is a sincere effort to get at the truth. Destroying it helps the encyclopedia directly by removing what may well be lies, and indirectly by sending a message that sophisticated trolling will come to nothing. -- Noroton (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been stubbed, my major objection is gone. We might as well keep it. I just hope unsourced information isn't added back in. -- Noroton (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubbify. If i understand the problem, it's a banned user whose often created hoax articles and hoax information that seems plausible? And allowing this to stand as is might encourage them to continue socking and, likely, start creating hoaxes again? And this is a long article to start with that's difficult to assess (because there's a lot of info). Given the record of the banned user, there is no trust or good faith to assume. Strip it down to "Neptune is an island in the Long Island sound" and have a responsible editor start over.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax accusation is misleading, there are no hoax articles that i am aware of. There is a current discussion at wp:an about the banned user and other users caught up in the mess. A major point there is that there are more than one different persons tarred with the same brush. I am aware of an accusation or two by Orlady that some material was fabricated, one of which was tracked down and shown to be false (the source existed, the quote was exact). I am not aware of any hoax articles. If you are, please share. doncram (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I opposed above, as the first response to the original deletion. Whatever the bad stuff in the article is, deleting the article destroys the continuous record here, and makes more work for us and for future editors not yet involved. The New Rochelle area editor(s) who put it in before have saved copies and stand ready to paste it in again, as they have before for this and other articles on New Rochelle area articles that have been deleted repeatedly. The New Rochelle area editors have been trained by long experience to understand that Wikipedia administration (broadly, meaning us), is unfair and mean-spirited, and that it is necessary to save copies, and to be persistent, in order to get suitable coverage of NR area topics that by everyone's admission are wikipedia-notable. I pretty much agree with them, that is a reasonable approach to take, given really nasty and unfair persecution. Some here would wish to punish them, to send a message by deleting the article. That message will not be received or understood; its only effect will be to make it harder for the rest of us to keep the bad stuff, whichever that is, out, in the future. Certainly it is fine for anyone to stubify the article, but this is an AfD process and the decision here is about whether to Keep or Delete. As the deletion nominator admits, the subject of the article is notable, and I argue that Keeping is far better. doncram (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of deletion (if the closing admin finds for it), is specifically to "destroy[] the continuous record". That's a feature, not a bug. Regardless of whether or not any one editor feels that a ban was rightfully enacted, the banning policy states that the content of editors evading a ban (as opposed to a simple, even indefinite, block) are not welcome here. That is doubly true for editors whose banning includes claims of source manipulation or plagiarism. Nor is the solution here to "save copies, and to be persistent". Deleted material is deleted material, and recreation of it is subject to speedy deletion on those grounds. I do not for a moment dispute that this topic is viable for Wikipedia. But the contribution of text that currently stands as an article on this topic is inherently tainted. You appear to feel passionately about this area of history, and likely have better access to sources than I do (this is way, way out of my field). You seem to be in a position to help write a replacement, properly sourced, and free of a banned editor's poisoned well. What's there now isn't worth arguing about. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram, if the only information in the article is sourced and confirmed, and the only information that goes into the article later is sourced and confirmed, won't everyone or just about everyone here be happy? If bali ultimate has done that, then most of my problems with it are removed, and I'm fine with keeping it. If someone is going to try to add back information that either isn't footnoted or, if footnoted, isn't confirmed by an editor in good standing, then we have a problem that AfD can't solve anyway. -- Noroton (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. By the way, I'm really not interested in the topic of this article, not at all. What I want to preserve is the discussion of specific sources, so that future wikipedia editors know that Orlady or whoever found out specifically that a given source said, or did not say, whatever. Stuff like that should best argued out in the Talk page of the article, but it is also argued out in the edit history and edit summaries in the article itself. Deleting will lose the present edit history, edit summaries, and any Talk page discussion. It will not remove the material from the hands of any NR area editors who might wish to add it in again. The future regular wikipedia editors will have no way of knowing that specific material was already discussed, if the article is deleted. Like the present discussion is impoverished by our not having access to the edit history and Talk page discussion of the two or more previous versions of this article, that were deleted already. doncram (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt if anyone's interested, I've brutally stubbified, and added in the fact that it appears to no longer be an island. I stripped out everything that wasn't clearly and accurately citable on line. I still think starting over is a better idea, given that you don't want to encourage this behavior (and the article was, as created, filled with unverifiable and confusing information.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think that this is a fine start. Your discussion of the sources in your edit summaries will prove invaluable in the future, too. Deleting and repasting in this new version would not encourage any good behavior or send any useful message, it would just lose useful information, in my view. So, I think we've reached the right outcome: the article has been reduced down to an acceptible stub. Orlady has effectively "won" by forcing other editors to do that. The NR editor(s) have "won" by having Orlady, me, and everyone else here agree that the topic is eminently notable. And future editors "win" by having record of the discussion and the specific discussion available to them. Yay, we have reached a WIN-WIN-WIN resolution. All that remains is for someone to close this discussion in favor of Keep. doncram (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change to keep per IAR as well as article improvements by a non-banned editor. MuZemike 21:43, 26 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.