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. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lac Sante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this meets WP:NGEO. I can't find any reliable sources referring to it online, and of course there's no references in the article as stands, plus the article contains very little information in the first place. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 18:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 18:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. wp:BEFORE was apparently not performed. To the nominator, you need to try to see if there are valid sources supporting the topic before nominating it for deletion. Clicking on the Google search links leads to multiple valid-type sources, for me. This is a natural feature, so I think it is obviously notable. I think it is wp:NGEO which expresses the policy/practice on natural geographic features like this. --Doncram (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doncram: Thank you for trying to find references. Could you please post some of the references here? I think actually posting the references will be more convincing and also useful to those who are trying to improve the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One of the sources that I just cited in our article confirms that this is a 10-square-kilometre lake. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2018 (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.