This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 September 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note to closer: there was a group of lakes nominated along with this one:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GEOLAND. Atsme 💬 📧 03:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article clearly possesses 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)[reply]

I agree, BusterD – NEXIST applies here as does GEOLAND. Notability has been met because these lakes, although small in comparison to some of the others, are a natural attraction in the Grand Tetons, and they are glacial lakes along the Death Canyon Shelf. WP:N is met by SNG as per WP:GNG: Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. As a sidebar note, they are notable enough that there is a widely publicized National Parks poster of the Forget-me-not Lakes area available globally, including Walmart and Amazon. The area is also covered in multiple books, and there is probably some interesting history about the formation of those lakes in books at public libraries, or in other documentation that can be obtained from park authorities. Atsme 💬 📧 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited the nominator to sidebar this discussion as suggested above. I very much appreciate their willingness to forbear (for the moment) similar prods and noms. I am aware that NO HARM is an argument to avoid, but as an eventualist myself, I believe that sources for such marginal but verifiable geographic topics will eventually be presented. Such are already presented here. I'm not as experienced in AfD as some of my fellows in this discussion. I'm willing to admit my inexperience might unduly color my assertions; I'm attempting to view this situation through a new page patroller's lens, even though it's been in pagespace for some time. It seems reasonable to presume NPP guides would dovetail with GNG and SNGs. 1) I feel this subject meets WP:VERIFY but also agree this page as it was at prodding was just shy of the intent of GEOLAND; 2) After improvements by page creator after prodding, I feel the page now passes that SNG; 3) Judging from the !votecount as of this comment, other editors agree with my outcome, if not my rationale. I'm interested in hearing from the nominator as to why deletion was requested even though the page creator was actively sourcing the page in response to the good faith prod. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes our guidelines for inclusion Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 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 3 lines and 4 sources after 10 years. In that time it had only had 5 edits until it was proposed for deletion! 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. The suggestion above about putting park features into a list article would make sense, as would other articles that treated with a range of features that could then be part of an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Sadly, though, there is no encyclopaedic content on this page, and I am a little surprised as many people want to keep it as have said so here. However the onus remains on them to show that the subject is notable as is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GEOLAND. These are pretty small lakes but there is certainly non-statistical information about them. Unfortunately I couldn't find any newspaper sources. Ovinus (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND Bruxton (talk) 16:20, 29 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.