Talk:Wabamun Lake

Lakes Mid‑importance

	Lakes portal Wabamun Lake is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Alberta / Geography Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Rumoured wildlife[edit]

For awhile now their have been sightings of a cougar in the Wabamun Lake Area. I live near there and for past few months I have been hearing what I think are wolves howling. Though I havn't actually seen any and havn't heard of anyone who has, though their is supposedly a pack that lives near Entwhistle. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 07:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unauthorized development[edit]

My concern with the added content regarding unauthorized development is not lack of truth or references, though the third paragraph is unreferenced and appears to be original research. The overarching concern is WP:NOTNEWS, which states “Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.” This event is not enduring and will not stand the test of time. It is nowhere near the scale of the oil spill event, which deserves significant coverage in the article. Some of the content also appears to be soapboxing the fact that little to no remediation has taken place to date.

I’ll be removing the third paragraph to address the concern it being unreferenced, appearing to be original research and appearing to be soapboxing frustration over the lack of progress on remediation. I’ll also be removing the category, which does not exist and isn’t warranted, and smoothing out some language while also posting a note on WP:ALBERTA to see if my concern about this event lacking enduring notability are shared. If no, I’ll bugger off. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While awaiting comment from others on the NOTNEWS concern, I just scaled the section back through a series of 11 edits. In addition to removing what I said I would above, I removed: non-neutral POV; content not actually supported by the references provided including fear-mongering content; information that is too granular; and copyright violations. Hwy43 (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]