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 and Rename to Waste pond per consensus. Sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 12:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical pond[edit]

Chemical pond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

non-notable pond (unless sources like the EPA can be found) Nardman1 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination article has been totally rewritten, is now sourced and NPOV. Nardman1 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only source says it all. Clearly OR. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• this is a real pond and real story i have several neighbors that agree keep also "#97108) NEW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)
  • Mr Cliffhanger, is the facility on Fleming Street the contaminator of this pond? Nardman1 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC) referring to deleted discussion from this page Nardman1 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • no sorry it is dow i apologize this is the article http://www.bhopal.net/piscataway.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)
• Weak keep with massive cleanup hopefully in its future. This shouldn't be an article just about one chemical pond, chemical ponds in general are a known phenomenon and should have a (larger and better written) article about them. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Waste pond, leaving a redirect, and tag for cleanup. Possibly consider merging with Tailing pond. See addition of new 'waste pond' in article per my agreement with Mermaid from the Baltic Sea's suggestion that chemical/waste ponds are encyclopedic. —Carolfrog 06:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is actually on two specific ponds with no assertion of WP:Notability and no sources for either, but article title is on an inappropriately general topic. It would be a bit like an article entitled American Citizen which actually turns out to contain biographies of one Mr. Smith and one Mr. Jones. Delete without prejudice to someone either creating a more general article or creating articles on these specific ponds if notability can be verified. --Shirahadasha 07:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shirahadasha. This worldwide phenomenon is far too common and far too serious for an article to describe only two ponds in the United States. --Charlene 12:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys you need to keep this is part of piscataways history, its not necessarily good history but it is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)

• The article addresses two different chemical ponds in two entirely different locations. The relevant information should be moved to Piscataway Township, New Jersey and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, respectively. An article about chemical ponds should address them in general, explaining how they got there and what is done to clean up after them, but I'd be surprised if we don't already have an article about it somewhere in Category:Pollution. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• VOC_contamination_of_groundwater#History might be a candidate site for merger. Carolfrog 05:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, but the Piscataway Township chemicals may not be volatile organic chemicals. The Oak Ridge chemicals were radioactive wastes, which aren't VOCs. (Still dangerous, though.) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• we should just change the name and split the article ( chemical pond, piscataway, chemical pond,oak ridge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)
• Delete/Move -per Elkman and Shirahadasha --Absurdist 02:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: If the consensus is delete, I would like to receive the article into my userspace. I think I might be able to write a sourced article about waste ponds in general, or perhaps about the two ponds in specific, as suggested by Elkman and Shirahadasha. Thank you. —Carolfrog 09:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Waste pond. Carolfrog you should just go ahead and rewrite the article now. No reason to wait. This is an article that needs to exist. Vegaswikian 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. this article absolutely needs inclusion in wikipedia. just because it s not well sourced or well written is not a basis of deletion. renaming to Waste pond is a possible solution, since that s a very common term for this type of pond. Anlace 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment to closing admin note new material and sources to generalize article. above comments of others now largely meaningless Anlace 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• note to closing admin Nom has been withdrawn. Anlace 03:33, 6 March 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.