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 at this time. I see reasonable policy based arguments on both sides. I recognize that the state of sourcing in the article remains a valid concern for the long term viability of this page as a stand alone article, and I therefore doubt this is the last word on this subject. However, given that the related discussions had similar discussions and closed as keep, I am doing a semi-procedural close for consistency of outcome. Mojo Hand(talk) 23:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG and GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage. The only source aside from topos and GNIS is a brief mention in a climbing guide. This is insufficient to establish SIGCOV as it is discussed only in relation to climbing access routes rather than direct coverage of the lake itself. –dlthewave☎ 05:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd after I have provided additions to it which seem to meet GEOLAND.--MONGO (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says 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 2 lines and 3 sources after 10 years. 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. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained this at the other 10 or so articles in this mass deletion attempt. The NGEO page banner clearly states (my bold underline): Places with nationally protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. We also have WP:NEXIST, which squelches your source argument; proper sources have been cited and others exist. WP:SNG clearly states 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. I'll go another step further with WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Your comment about this article's 3 lines is irrelevant at AfD because (a) the current material is more than simple statistics, and (b) being a stub does not effect notability. HTH Atsme💬📧 21:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passed WP:NEXIST from the get-go, and also passed NGEO – the same argument applies here that applies to the multiple other prodded and/or nommed articles by this same nom. Atsme💬📧 17:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer – the following articles are included in this group: updated 15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The nom could've started a discussion with the article creator FIRST, and maybe tagged the articles with a more sources needed tag...or like I have been doing, simply found the sources themselves. What a novel idea. Unnecessary.15:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Atsme💬📧 17:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. Hard to find newspaper sources for this one because a cirque is also just a geographical feature and there are a fair number of spurious instances of "cirque lake" (lowercase). I did find one source about a nearby minor airplane crash, but it's not fit for inclusion imv. ([1]) Ovinus (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Going to strike my vote because I'm really finding nothing useful here. The current sources are all passing mentions. Topos and GNIS are not good enough for GEOLAND. Ovinus (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2022 (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.