Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Pocket Reservoir

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 delete.-Wafulz (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Pocket Reservoir[edit]

Contested prod. Normally I would not bring up geographical locations for deletion as there seems to be a general notion that places have "inherent" notability - but it is not merely notability that is the problem here. Put simply, there are no reliable sources that this place actually exists. First of all, the given "reference" is to a fishing database of dubious reliability. Secondly, the coordinates given by said "reference" are nowhere near (and virtually inaccessible) from I-15 as stated in the article. Third, there is a "Cedar Pond" at the coordinates given, but it is an intermittent pond less than fifty feet across, and hardly a "popular fishing spot" as stated in the article. So, assuming that this pond really is the intended subject of the article, the information in the article is 100% made up and unsourced - and even then, it has no shred of notability. Shereth 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:V. USGS GNIS says that the lake is there (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Cedar Pocket Reservoir). USGS cites Arizona maps and it took some digging to find the USGS entry. ~~The Yahoo! satellite image shows an apparent lake there.~~ The Google image is too far out. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the map? All I get on those coordinates is a dried-up pond. Still doesn't address the concern that this place (in the USGS link provided) is clearly not the place described in the article. Shereth 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

correction: The Yahoo! Map referred from USGS appears not to match the coordinates. Anyway, USGS says the reservoir is at (36.2930358, -113.4438268) and Cedar Pond (U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Cedar Pond) is nearby at (36.2966470, -113.4421603). I can't see much from the satellite images. Not much else found except a passing environmental mention. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the GNIS database is never purged of placenames "except in cases of obvious duplication". This reservoir could have been drained in the 1890s for all we know. All the sources pull their data from GNIS, even this herbarium accession. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per this source ([1]) it appears that the pond and the resevoir are two distinct bodies of watter. Any assumption placed on the pond would probably be incorrect in relation to the resevoir. These two places certainly exist. --147.70.176.108 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source to verify this? More to the point, the link offered is to a user-created and editable database that even has a disclaimer at the top regarding "mistakenly entered" lakes that "shouldn't be here". Shereth 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That source is computer generated seed article in an attempt to build a wiki. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2008 (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.