Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Lake (California)


 * 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. Keep, withdrawn. IAR on a self-close, as consensus is clear and it's mostly uncontroversial to do so. tedder (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cedar Lake (California)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Prod removed. The issue isn't that the lake/pond exists, it's that a church camp is lacking reliable sources to establish notability. There's lore that movies were filmed there, but nothing to back it up. tedder (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC) *Delete because it is an non-notable church camp. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Change vote to Keep. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've expanded the article so that it is now clearly about the lake, not the church camp.  Please give this another look! Because of its location and beauty, the lake has appeared in many motion pictures and TV episodes, which has led to its mention in numerous reliable sources that are independent of the subject, some of which are now cited as sources.  I also believe that named geographical features are inherently notable. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's looking good, Stepheng3, and certainly emphasizing the lake instead of the camp helps its encyclopedic merit in my mind. OTOH, it still lacks reliable sources, since IMDB is a little difficult as a reliable source: WP:RS/IMDB. In other words, it's great as supplementary material (as is the church camp website), but doesn't hold much weight otherwise. tedder (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But surely the USGS and California Department of Water Resources are reliable sources. Are you saying that those cites are not significant? --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know offhand if GNIS counts as a RS to establish notability, that's something that would need to be addressed in a larger forum. In any case, it's a moot point, the article has been massively cleaned up and refocused. tedder (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about using IMDB as a source. I managed to confirm the lake's use as a location in Brigham Young (1940) (using an Italian book at Google Books) and also to find a news story about a recent drowning in the lake.  The lake is notable, and the article now cites six independent sources.  I've done a ton of work here, and I'm explicitly asking Tedder and Prsaucer to reconsider their positions on this AfD. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDB is probably fine as a source, just not as a source to establish notability. Consider my position reconsidered. May as well let this go full-length, it's clear that it will be kept (as it should). It's nice being wrong sometimes. tedder (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and a suggestion to nom that the Afd be withdrawn based on Notability (geography) and Common outcomes-Geography. This lake is notable because it is in the USGS name database, plus its not a bad article too boot!--Mike Cline (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the focus being on the lake itself. The common outcome (though not an official policy) is described in Notability (geography) under "named geographic features", with the gist of it being that if it's named and if there is some showing of notability, it can have its own article; otherwise, it would be redirected. Mandsford 21:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per refocus on the lake itself (geographical article). And there's actually content not just a "geo-feature X is located at Y" microstub--rare for small geographical features--with actual history and some sort of notability. DMacks (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DMacks and Mandsford. Great job, Stephen. Killiondude (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - per WP:GNG and Stepheng3's edits. Very nicely done. moreno oso (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.