Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming): Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming): Keep and hold on, there... |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*'''leaning delete''' But again I think the better solution for this and the other Grand Teton lakes is a list of lakes in the park. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 04:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
*'''leaning delete''' But again I think the better solution for this and the other Grand Teton lakes is a list of lakes in the park. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 04:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' - easily passes GEOLAND. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 03:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - easily passes GEOLAND. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"><small>Atsme</small></span>]] [[User talk:Atsme|💬]] [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 03:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep'''. The article clearly possesses more information "beyond statistics and coordinates" already, so more is "known to exist". When I saw this prod, my first impression, my gut reaction, was to question what harm this article was doing, and question why it was nominated. I suppressed my first impression for a time. I do a bit of new page patrol (perhaps not enough), and coming from a well-known contributor on this sort of subject matter I might pass such a page at new page patrol merely on good faith. Similarly, I won't doubt the good faith WP:BOLD of the nominator, who I'm certain feels a need to delete. In this particular case, I'm going to question the judgment of the nominator as it regards this specific subject-matter type and request they refrain from further prods or afds until we sidebar this whole question of NOHARM and GEOLAND. Since my NPP mentor is already in this discussion, I'm sure she'd be happy to help examine this question. [[User:Dlthewave]] is under no restriction but with respect, I request they halt the prodding and nomming for now. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 09:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:02, 24 August 2022
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG/NGEO due to lack of significant coverage. The article was recently deprodded after sources were added, however A climber's guide to the Teton range is only a brief passing mention and Teewinot only discusses the namesake flower with no mention of the lakes themselves. BEFORE search did not find additional SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist.--MONGO (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- The relevant SNG, WP:GEOLAND, requires that "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". It's long been accepted that simply appearing on maps and GNIS is insufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- leaning delete But again I think the better solution for this and the other Grand Teton lakes is a list of lakes in the park. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - easily passes GEOLAND. Atsme 💬 📧 03:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The article clearly possesses more information "beyond statistics and coordinates" already, so more is "known to exist". When I saw this prod, my first impression, my gut reaction, was to question what harm this article was doing, and question why it was nominated. I suppressed my first impression for a time. I do a bit of new page patrol (perhaps not enough), and coming from a well-known contributor on this sort of subject matter I might pass such a page at new page patrol merely on good faith. Similarly, I won't doubt the good faith WP:BOLD of the nominator, who I'm certain feels a need to delete. In this particular case, I'm going to question the judgment of the nominator as it regards this specific subject-matter type and request they refrain from further prods or afds until we sidebar this whole question of NOHARM and GEOLAND. Since my NPP mentor is already in this discussion, I'm sure she'd be happy to help examine this question. User:Dlthewave is under no restriction but with respect, I request they halt the prodding and nomming for now. BusterD (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)