Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:23, 28 August 2022

Dudley Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Dudley Lake (Teton County, 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 WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage; sourced only to topo map and GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 24 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. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd before I even have had some time to make updates to it.--MONGO (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Have added further details which meet GEOLAND I believe.--MONGO (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - no question that it passes N, but thanks for adding more info, MONGO. An admin respectfully requested that the nom stop prodding and nomming. We are being inundated apparently based on the nom's misinterpretation of WP:NEXIST and WP:GEO which clearly apply here. Atsme 💬 📧 13:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep a lake which passes our WP:GEOLAND. Gentle reminder to WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says in the relevant section: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Misplaced Pages article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. To be clear, those who say it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND and that the nom. should have considered WP:BEFORE have not provided any sources that demonstrate that notability. The fact it sits in a national park does not confer automatic notability. Per WP:GEOLAND there is insufficient verifiable information for an encylopaedic article and this stub should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: Consider that you may be misinterpreting the GEO guideline. It is understandable because our guidelines, policies and essays are all confoundingly contradictory at times. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GEOLAND, which most editors hold to override the WP:GNG. Consider WP:GAZETTEER; this article is appropriate for a encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages. I also find a few mentions, which perhaps don't add up to GNG but may be used for further sourcing:
  • "Park lake named to honor Dudley Hayden". Jackson Hole News. 10 December 1970. Retrieved 27 August 2022. Continued at
  • "Looking back: 30 years ago". The Jackson Hole Guide. 6 December 2000. Retrieved 27 August 2022.

There are a couple smaller entries. Again, borderline on WP:GNG, but there are no verifiability concerns here. I entreat the nom to withdraw their other nominations, as it's a little tiring for me to conduct six more searches. Ovinus (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If an article such as List of lakes in Grand Teton National Park existed, would anyone here be opposed to merging this article into it? I am neutral. Ovinus (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus: I am ok with the idea of the list in addition to keeping the individual lake articles. That way if there is ever a future new consensus we have a target for redirect. Brilliant Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

ONly objection I have is the vast majority of lists consist of less information than these stubs had to begin with and are worse as far as providing anything of knowledge.--MONGO (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Places and transportation)
• AfD debates