This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2022 September 1. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails GNG/NGEO due to lack of significant coverage. The article was recently deprodded after sources were added, however A climber's guide to the Teton range is only a brief passing mention and Teewinot only discusses the namesake flower with no mention of the lakes themselves. BEFORE search did not find additional SIGCOV. – dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG.As a sidebar note, they are notable enough that there is a widely publicized National Parks poster of the Forget-me-not Lakes area available globally, including Walmart and Amazon. The area is also covered in multiple books, and there is probably some interesting history about the formation of those lakes in books at public libraries, or in other documentation that can be obtained from park authorities. Atsme 💬 📧 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
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.. Here we have an article with 3 lines and 4 sources after 10 years. In that time it had only had 5 edits until it was proposed for deletion! It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. The suggestion above about putting park features into a list article would make sense, as would other articles that treated with a range of features that could then be part of an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Sadly, though, there is no encyclopaedic content on this page, and I am a little surprised as many people want to keep it as have said so here. However the onus remains on them to show that the subject is notable as is. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2022 September 1. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Fails GNG/NGEO due to lack of significant coverage. The article was recently deprodded after sources were added, however A climber's guide to the Teton range is only a brief passing mention and Teewinot only discusses the namesake flower with no mention of the lakes themselves. BEFORE search did not find additional SIGCOV. – dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG.As a sidebar note, they are notable enough that there is a widely publicized National Parks poster of the Forget-me-not Lakes area available globally, including Walmart and Amazon. The area is also covered in multiple books, and there is probably some interesting history about the formation of those lakes in books at public libraries, or in other documentation that can be obtained from park authorities. Atsme 💬 📧 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
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.. Here we have an article with 3 lines and 4 sources after 10 years. In that time it had only had 5 edits until it was proposed for deletion! It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. The suggestion above about putting park features into a list article would make sense, as would other articles that treated with a range of features that could then be part of an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Sadly, though, there is no encyclopaedic content on this page, and I am a little surprised as many people want to keep it as have said so here. However the onus remains on them to show that the subject is notable as is. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)