Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake 13


 * 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 no consensus. --Ezeu 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Lake 13
Article does not establish encyclopedic notablity -- it's a lake made by a dam, just like tens of thousands of similar lakes. older ≠ wiser 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems like a lake should stay. Per WP:AFDP, "Landmarks (i.e. lakes, mountains, etc.) are notable."   And since the the lake is rather sizable - 95 acres is pretty big - it's more than somebody's backyard pond. Looks pretty impressive in satellite photos  --Marriedtofilm 03:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems like a rather large lake. Chris Kreider 12:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:AFDP. Cheers -- Imo  eng  12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  Weak Delete  Artificial lake, more like a big pool made for local recreational purposes. No assertion of notability. -- Hús  ö  nd  15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my stance to regular Delete. Keeping this would create a precedent to allow every single artificial pond to have its article. Not even Central Park's artificial lakes, which are certainly more notable than this one, have articles.-- Hús  ö  nd  15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete A 95-acre lake is not at all notable as a geographic feature. Doesn't appear to have any other notability in terms of location, use, etc.  And apparently it's not even important enough to have a real name. :)   --Ed (Edgar181) 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is more a pond than a lake - 95 acres is about 1/4 mile across. Not notable per Ed. Bpmullins 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, a small, un-named, man made lake does not cut it as a geographic feature. Nuttah68 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no consensus among the Wikipedia community regarding how small a lake should be to be deleted and, even if there was, I suspect that this one would pass the test. Overall, if a government has bothered to call it a lake, it seems to be worthy of inclusion if verifiable.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 23:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For all those voting to keep, if we reduce this article to what is verifiable from the only source provided, we are left with the statement "Lake 13 is a lake located in Surrey township, Clare County, Michigan. The lake spans about 95 acres (384,000 m²)." None of the rest of the article is verifiable from the source provided. Further, the name is ambiguous, there are not only two other lakes named "Lake 13" in the state of Michigan, there are three others in Minnesota (as well as two others named "Thirteen Lake". I am usually extremely inclusive when it comes to geographical features, but this lake is non-notable in the extreme. And considering that the only source provided is an image from a real estate agency, I have to question whether there may be an element of self-promotion involved. older ≠ wiser 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. If kept, it should be renamed Lake 13 (Clare County, Michigan).  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 12:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I am more inclined to keep villages than lakes. Lakes are less important to the human experience. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a private lake without a name, the article has nothing interesting or notable to say about it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:55, 30 October 2006 (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.