Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Hollow 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. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Hollow Lake[edit]

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

I deleted this earlier as promotional, but it has been re-created. I am in doubt whether an article can be written about the lake itself, which is only 200 acres, but if so the present article should be deleted and a new one started. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, and if needed, recreate as article on the body of water, per DGG. As it stands, it is an article about an HOA, which itself is not notable. Citations do not establish notability of the HOA. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:ORG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Shire Reeve (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence that Dutch Hollow Lake is a corporation. Actually it is a well-known reservoir, and I've rewritten the article accordingly. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dutch Hollow Lake is well known. It is common to have property owners associations to provide some regulations involving lakes in Wisconsin. Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rewritten article demonstrates this is a notable reservoir.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its present format - geographical features are notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2011 (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.