Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Pond (Massachusetts)

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. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Pond (Massachusetts)[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)

No indication of notability. There are dozens of small ponds on Cape Cod, and nothing in the article indicates why this one is unique. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion is not correct the course of action for a named natural features with more than basic statistics and coordinates per WP:GEOLAND named natural features. If the article is not retained it should be merged as a named section given information about the bathymetry and fish in the water exist along with some management history. The cited source provides opportunity to expand the article at least to meet a few sections of encyclopedic content. Wikipedia provides an opportunity to be inclusive of shorter entries that can be developed further and there is sufficient information not to make this a permastub. Also to address the rational of other small ponds not making the article unique if flawed, it means no systematic effort or individual with interest has been made an effort to create an article on the other lakes if they meet more than statistics threshold and sufficient resources could be cited the other ponds could exist in the future. Along these lines what constitutes an "encyclopedia article" in GEOLAND might be evaluated against the WP:LAKES recommendation for article structure and how many of the sections could be developed and to what extent. While many lake articles may be shorter than the more well known lakes such as Lake Michigan it does not make them less relevant as an encyclopedic entry especially in Wikipedia's function as a Gazetteer (as mentioned in intro line of Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and addressing the long tail of information that Wikipedia can fill with shorter entries. I agree work is needed to flush this article out from the current source cited and other additional sources would further the independent article argument. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the article is copy-pasted from MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife [1]. I'm not sure what the copyright status is for this state government source, but the article should either be credited as such or rewritten if kept. –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:49, 22 July 2020 (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.