Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Lake (Abbotsford)


 * 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 The result of the debate was keep. Article is now located at Chadsey Lake. -- moe.RON   Let's talk  19:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Lost Lake (Abbotsford)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page should be deleted because the lake in question is owned privately, and it is inpolite to post it on the interent with directions and all to private property. Sp4rk3d 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment there is a previous AfD for this article here. Note also that this article was vandalized by User:207.216.215.187 before the same user nominated it for deletion. I assume that Sp4rk3d is the same as this IP, since Sp4rk3d completed the nom initiated by the IP and has raised similar objections to the article in the past (see the previous AfD discussion and the article history). This AfD is somewhat suspect as a result. Deor 18:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' per Deor's comment & because (as far as I know) there's no Wikipedia policy that mandates 'politeness' with regard to article content. --Xiaphias 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak Strong Keep and Rename per Dhartung. Sp4rk3d, I'm sorry if the existance of this article has caused you some kind of difficulty. However, the fact that something is private property does not show a clear reason for deleting it. While I would prefer to see it cited, I did some research and see that there are sources that at least collaborate the existance and location of this lake - that is enough for me to support it's inclusion. Trusilver 19:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Chadsey Lake, apparently the more common name. Unless I'm mistaken it's here, and sources such as here and here and not least here discuss it as a recreational destination within the park, so I can't confirm the claim that the lake is otherwise private. The directions from Batt Road may well cross private property, so we should be sure to use an official set of directions (if we have any) rather than original research. --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I concur. The documentation seems to suggest that yes, Chadsey Lake is the actual name. And with this citation, any thoughts about deletion are gone as far as I'm concerned. Trusilver 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not aware that there is any Wikipedia guideline that says the ownership of a geographical feature has any bearing on its encyclopedic value, also not good practice to nominate an article a second time without serious reasons. PatGallacher 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In fairness, the closing admin last time (June 23) invited a renomination due to unclear intent of the first AFD, especially after the move. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions.   -- Canuckle 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment BLP for lakes? DGG 05:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Dhartung to Chadsey Lake. I'm not an expert but the BC Geographical Naming database does not list a "Lost Lake" that matches the Abbotsford coordinates: see here and Chadsey here. Canuckle 21:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've relocated the page to it's official name (Chadsey Lake). This is not a resolution, just a step in the right direction. However, I don't have an opinion in regards to it's notability, since I'm unfamiliar with the location. + m t  23:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's part of a regional park; see Fraser Valley Regional District Parks: Sumas Mountain. According to the site, the park includes a hiking trail that leads to Chadsey Lake.  From that, it appears there's public access to the lake.  Therefore, I'm recommending a keep for this article. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't understand how a geographical feature is suddenly non-notable due to ownership status. Anyway, per Elkman, it's part of a regional park. --Oakshade 14:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: after reviewing the information provided from the links posted here, it seems worthy of keeping (particularly since it is part of a regional park, and will probably not disappear). It actually looks like a nice place; check it out in Google Earth from a perspective view, if you can (it's nested on the North side of Sumas Mountain). + m t  04:48, 8 July 2007 (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.