Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tisbury Great Pond


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Tisbury Great Pond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article's subject is an insignificant pond-not nearly as significant to pass WP:GEOLAND.

PS: I'm the dude who was restricted from Twinkle for being incompetent, but I think I nailed it now. JTZegers (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --  puddleglum  2.0  18:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep did you not look at the citations? It is clearly a significant. --M V D H P (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the citations, however there is not enough content to prove that the article is significant. This might be a case of WP:TOOSHORT. JTZegers (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: JTZegers, you misunderstood WP:TOOSHORT; that guideline says that the length of the article is not a reason to delete a page. What matters is the quality of the sources, and the Vineyard Gazette coverage establishes notability. For example, this article goes into some detail on the chemical makeup of the pond. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Citations provided plus others available in news and book sources satisfy the WP:notability requires verifiable evidence test. Also WP:TOOSHORT is a section from the larger WP:overzealous deletion essay.  Significance is proven by availability of reliable sources, not by content incorporated into the article. That said, the stub can use a greater diversity of sources, but that appears to be a surmountable problem. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly supported by the content of the cited articles and helps satisfy the Gazetteer function of Wikipedia and the points others have made above. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep "Nailed it now", my aunt Mathilda. That amount of suitable refs is easily enough for an article, let alone a stub. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:50, 12 July 2020 (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.