Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isis Balancing Storage

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.

Isis Balancing Storage[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article is one of a series of articles created on water storages in Queensland, Australia by Whereiswally (talk · contribs). Most of these articles are fine but some are of borderline notability, such as this one. The article does not provide any reliable, independent sources and does not assert the significance of the subject (indeed, quite the opposite using terms such as "duckpond" and "mere"). I don't think that every minor water storage in Queensland is notable enough for an article. Mattinbgn\^talk 06:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - see below. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources and expanded slightly. It appears to be popular with fishermen and is artificially stocked with fish each year. Fosnez (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost all verifiable places are notable in my book, and this one moreso because it is a popular fishing location. —Moondyne 07:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a lake that seems well talked about. It is hard to see how a lake, no matter what the state of the current article, is not notable. Not a stretch to write a good article about, based on the fishing alone from what I can see online- Peripitus (Talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument above is persuasive and given the improvement in the article I would like to withdraw my nomination. Given that there has been no support for deleting this article, perhaps someone not involved in the discussion to date would like to speedily close this . -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:23, 26 December 2007 (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.