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. Tone 10:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moosjisee[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)

This fails WP:NGEO. This reservoir is man-made and is therefore not a a natural feature. Instead, it's an artificial geographical feature, which has presumed notability only if it is a recognized culturally significant place (this reservoir does not appear to have such cultural status). This reservoir appears to also fail WP:GNG; I cannot find significant coverage of it. Because it fails both GNG and NGEO, this article should be deleted as non-notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not just your average reservoir. It is one of the five lakes on the Five Lakes Walk, which is one of the most popular hiking trails of the world-famous mountain village Zermatt. With its intense turquoise color and iconic Matterhorn in the background, it is a very popular photo subject and notability is certainly given. --MRB (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's quite widely mentioned in all sorts of travel-guides to Switzerland, though Google-searches are not helped by a vast number of hits for Mooji-tv trying to get us to see with the eyes of consciousness. I think one should be a bit careful of interpreting the wording of WP:NGEO in a narrow sense; the demand for recognized cultural significance is in a section on buildings and objects, and seems to apply much more to things like bridges and dams than to a large lake. It is probably intended to stop articles on things like run-of-the-mill motorway bridges, by differentiating their status from that of a great historical viaduct. A lake is almost always going to be quite a significant feature of a place, influencing every aspect of its economy and social situation. Distinguishing man-made lakes from natural lakes is somewhat unhelpful as both have the same impact on their locality. And sometimes we don't even know: The Broads in Norfolk, for example, were believed to be natural until the 1960s. Elemimele (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2021 (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.