Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuxis 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. After sources have been added.  Sandstein  15:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Tuxis Pond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. No citations to show for its notability. Article doesn't show how important the place is to the things it is associated with. Also probably A7, although I do not wish to tag it for speedy as I'm unsure. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 01:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, this article fails WP:NGEO, especially WP:GEOLAND which says: For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
 * Comment The article creator, User:Cormac Nocton messaged me regarding the article, saying, "I see no reason that my article should be deleted, and would greatly appreciate it if you told me how to improve my article. I realize that the subject is quite obscure, but it is nonetheless an important part of the local geography, ecology, and especially folklore. I would be thankful if you removed the tag. Removing this article would conflict with my article on Tuxis Island, as well." Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 02:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Please try to help me by finding some sites or sources which talk about the location. I tried finding them myself but I couldn't find anything verifiable to place onto the article. If you can't find them, I won't be able to help you.  Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 02:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has potential. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  04:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean article has potential? Do you mean potential as in potential third party sources available? Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 07:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverified. May be worth a mention in the Madison, Connecticut article if it can be verified. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added GNIS sourcing and Native American etymology to the article, and some information about a walkway that's admittedly small fry but demonstrates the subject's potential coverage in regional news sources (which are rarely freely available online). It should also be noted that the Folklore section seems verifiable based on results of a Google Books search, however the relevant sources offer only snippets; nevertheless this indicates offline sources exist and there is no requirement that references must be accessible online. WP:GEOLAND also reads: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This requirement has been met, and searches seem to indicate that more exists beyond the low-hanging fruit of Google. Antepenultimate (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, as Antepenultimate has added some much needed information and references. Sea Captain Cormac 23:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)


 * 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.