Talk:Dyken Pond

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Dyken Pond is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state): Hudson Valley Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Velella. I don't like reverting good faith edits, but I took down a notability tag when I added the relevant information and source earlier. The subject of the article pretty clearly meets WP:GEOLAND and is notable. Perhaps you would remove the tag? Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oops I see we are cross posting. Just got your note on my talk page. Thanks. I am pretty sure there is ample discussion of the lake. This is not a small or remote feature. It is a large pond near a populated area. Did you look at Google? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't see evidence of notability from the single reference. Am I missing something here ? The guidance says:

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

. (the bolding is mine). The reference provided provides just statistics and location . The guidance requires more than that. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, did you look in Google? A quick glance shows an extensive number of hits and information. Even removing the purely commercial ones this is clearly not an insignificant geographic feature. The guideline requires that enough sources exist to build an encyclopedic article. It does not require that they need to be cited at the article's birth. But if after looking at Google you still disagree you can send it to AfD. It's been my experience that large geographic features of this sort have almost always been deemed notable and kept. But yeah, if you really think it fails notability just send it to AfD and we can let the community decide. You might be right. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have little time, but had I been intent on tagging it for deletion I would have sought out sources. I didn't and I haven't. If somebody can make it notable, that's fine. If not I strongly suggest that the notability tag stays. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Huh, I didn't see this discussion before enacting my recent edits... obviously I'm on the side of "notable" and I've added some referenced information "beyond statistics" so hopefully this isn't so much much of an issue any longer. - Antepenultimate (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic