Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Horse Lake

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. especially in light of the article improvements that have happened since this page was nominated for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Horse Lake[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)

Seasonal lake doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Montana. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, reasonably sure someone will be along waving WP:GEOLAND around and saying a low bar to inclusion applies, but it doesn't. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would WP:GEOLAND not apply? It is the Wikipedia guideline that applies to lakes. This is a lake. Any one who wants to make a serious comment about the notability of this lake should carefully consider both GEOLAND and GNG as the appropriate guidelines. Inclusion on Wikipedia is founded on policies and guidelines such as these. Jacona (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a lake, that has been the subject of dispute, in or close to a wildlife reserve. It appears in multiple environmental impact surveys. WP:GEOLAND says: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. and this meets that criteria, based on the information that I just added, that I found by searching in google books. There is some uncited material in the article, but it all seems credible to me, based on what I read in the various sources that mention them. It is not clear to me the extent to which WP:GNG is met, due to the length of content in each article, but I think that consensus is that WP:GEOLAND has a lower bar and I think this passes it. CT55555 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not very notable but it seems to be just about notable enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 29 July 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.