Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cones Lake (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cones Lake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is/was a small private artificial lake or pond. There is insufficient coverage to meet GNG. All sources are just maps or databases. The article was not deleted in the prior AFD due to confusion with Bass Lake (Watauga County, North Carolina), also known as Cone Lake, which had not been written at the time. Since then, the other article was developed, partially with sources identified during the first AFD of this article. After sorting out which sources were about which lake, there is not enough left to show this one is notable. MB 22:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with your categorization of Cone lake being attributed to Bass Lake instead of this lake. The publications that are cited in the article have no indication that they are discussing Bass Lake instead of Cones Lake, and if we were to make assumptions, it seems more likely that Cones lake was also referred to as Cone lake. Also, the lake is on land owned by a land trust, and was once open to the public. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and although this lake is no longer owned publicly does not mean it should not have its own page. KyleGorczynski (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are saying. The sources in this article are about Cones Lakes. There are three maps and a database. We only have articles on topics that have in-depth coverage and this is not in-depth coverage. The other sources I mentioned are not used in this article, but they were mistakenly used in the prior AFD. MB 22:42, 8 September 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.