Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walker Pond

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 No Consensus defaulting to keep. Davewild (talk) 11:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Pond[edit]

Unremarkable pond of hyperlocal interest only. Failed Prod. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:HOLE, which is a more humorous way of saying it's got no WP:N. (Translation of this hostile alphabet soup for newcomers: It's not notable enough.) Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 17:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of notability, and it totally fails WP:HOLE. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a strictly a local landmark with no WP:RS coverage out of area. As for WP:LOCAL, a "Places of interest" section is conspicuously absent from the Sturbridge, Massachusetts. The verifiable content rates a mention there. I'll add that as time permits. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update: The pond is part of Wells State Park, Massachusetts, which pretty much covers the subject. I added the park with a mention of the pond to the Sturbridge, Mass. article. Anything else about the pond that's WP:Verifiable belongs in the Wells State Park article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a perfectly fine subject for its own Wikipedia article--notable Indian spot. I sketched in some history with cites. Grateful for the enthusiasm of those who made a start on this.--Wageless (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite is a good start. The history is encyclopedic, but local interest is still an issue. Delete vote stricken. Not decided yet whether to keep or merge. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, falls just short of WP:Places. If someone can place some notability on the initial landowners or something else of historic value, I will change my vote to KEEP!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wells State Park, Massachusetts preferred, but okay with keep. If it is kept, it should be moved to a less ambiguous name. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Sturbridge has historic value. MrPrada (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Give go. --Eetvartti (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - verifiable, historical and has reliable sources. Why would we ever even think about deleting it? That said, a merge would be acceptable - but a proper merge, not a dodgy copy and paste, delete and redirect. EJF (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: because it wasn't verifiable or cited when nominated. The article has come a long way since then. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am just one of the hundreds or maybe thousands of descendants of Perez Walker who have found or might eventually find this information useful. There is much written about this particular Walker line of genealogy and I believe Walker Pond deserves it's own article.Powalker (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (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.