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.
Fails GNG/GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage. The only source besides GNIS and topo maps is a passing mention in a climbing guide which is insufficient to establish SIGCOV. –dlthewave☎05:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 after I have provided additions to it which seem to meet GEOLAND.--MONGO (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.. Here we have an article with 2 lines and 3 sources after 10 years. 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. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mergeable content on this page. A redirect is unnecessary in my opinion, but redirects cost nothing, so a redirect to Grand Teton National Park would be an acceptable outcome. Tbh, if I were looking at these pages, I would probably have concluded a bold redirect of the lot of them was a much more productive route as AfD currently has no means to delete at scale. It does not alter my view, however, that there is no encyclopaedic topic possible at this level of granularity, and that this page should therefore be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy and Theleekycauldron: I have added a few references. Because it is a named natural feature it passes WP:GEOLAND. It is also in a protected area which would mean the actual lake is also protected, and it is referenced. It should be kept per our guidelines. I could find more for the article but I will wait to see what others say. Lightburst (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding these. One of these sources, the book, says The beautiful alpine Coyote Lake (10,201) lies high at the head of the south fork in a section on "Open Canyon". That is all. The web page says that a couple hiked to Coyote Lake, one of the highest-altitude lakes and again they say it is beautiful. And again, that is all. These are passing mentions, not treatments of the lake. Rather than establishing notability, they reaffirm my belief that Coyote Lake is not a feature that has sufficient notability for an encylopaedia article, and that our treatment of the lake should be like the books: putting the mention of it within a broader treatment. The book has it as a brief mention in Canyons and Approaches. You could also include it in a list of lakes in the park, or an article on hydrology, or on trails etc. The fact it is in a protected area is not relevant per notability guidelines. The guidelines are clear that a protected area is notable, but the relevant section here is "Named natural features". I don't intend to say any more, although I will happily re-evaluate my position again, should anyone find any sources that establish notability. I have looked though, and I haven't found any. Sorry. (genuinely sorry. I am not ideologically wedded to article deletion. I just think in this case it is called for as no encyclopaedic article is possible starting from here). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant PAGs that apply here include: WP:CONTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:V, WP:NGEO, and WP:SNG. There is no disputing the fact that these lakes are nationally protected, named glacial lakes (geographical features) in the Grand Tetons, and that satisfies WP:N per WP:GEOLAND. Atsme💬📧16:06, 25 August 2022 (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.