Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin Lakes, New Jersey


 * 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 delete. Any editor may create a redirect if they wish. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Twin Lakes, New Jersey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable place with no sources established. I could not locate any reliable sources to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - A legally recognised place with a population of 83,000 people is presumed to be notable per WP:GEOLAND. However, a search on the State of New Jersey web site doesn't reveal any gazetted localities with that name. Can anyone confirm or deny that there is a "City of Twin Lakes" in that state? The only reference I can find to a "Twin Lakes" is a site in Andover Township, New Jersey. If there is no such thing as "City of Twin Lakes", I vote to rework this article so that it refers to that lake. Again per GEOLAND, named natural features are presumed to be notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". De Guerre (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "anybody confirm or deny" isn't the basis for inclusion in WP; The official state website is conclusive. The larger of the two very ordinary ponds seems to be > 30 acres, the smaller > 5 acre. No article here, I think. — Neonorange (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a possibility that I am not smart enough to figure out the official state web site of New Jersey. De Guerre (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Google Maps is good 'first look' site when trying to confirm existence; some of the U.S. states official websites can be rather arcane. Since this was a hoax article Google Maps was a quick confirmation of likely no existence, making it worthwhile to go thru the NJ website for WP:RS confirmation. (Looking further at the original article, the city motto was another clinker indicating 'hoax'. Thanks to who hoax-tagged for speedy only two days after creation. — Neonorange (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete — I've found no occurrence of 'Twin Lakes, New Jersey' or 'City of Twin Lakes, New Jersey' in any online reference: not in New Jersey Monthly (Top towns, list of 514 municipalities in New Jersey), Google Maps, newjersey.hometownlocator.com, Or, most tellingly, at, The Official Website of the State of New Jersey. The only location to show up with the name Twin Lakes is a lake, not a municipality. This article was tagged speedy delete, CDS G3. The town does not exist, yet the article includes a purported map; seems a hoax to me. — Neonorange (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Named natural features, such as Lakes, Mountain are generally considered notable. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Redirect to Kittatinny Valley State Park per 's reasoning. I can't find enough content for a stand-alone article myself. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment — Twin Lakes, two very small lakes, are already covered in Kittatinny Valley State Park. There was no article ever here; it was a deliberate hoax at the start; an article purporting to have a municipality as its subject, and using a bogus map pruporting to show the city. The original CSD 3 tag by was correct. And this part of WP:GEOLAND fits perfectly — "!Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. " and the already existing Kittatinny Valley State Park is a perfect fit; and already includes Twin Lakes information. — Neonorange (talk)

Objection — has completely rewritten the article under discussion, and completely changed the subject, while keeping the same title. This, if it is not reverted, makes a mockery of the afd. Effectively he has closed the discussion by the back door, as there have been suggestions made and delete !votes supported, but now it is impossible to follow the discussion without going to the. Article history. I ask {{u|Wikicology} to revert his edits to the article in the interest of proper procedure. N—Neonorange (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The original page was created by a new editor who is probably not familiar with content creation and article layout. Such an editor is likely not to be familiar with when and how to use infoboxes thereby creating a messy article. I believe, the aim of every Wikipedian is to build the encyclopedia. Nobody is interested in who win at WP:AfD and for this reason, I am a bit perplex by your statement that "This, if it is not reverted, makes a mockery of the afd". Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And now you have redirected the page, to a different article, with a different name, an incorrect name 'Twin Lake', losing the history, thus deleting the history, as well as the content. Please respect the process, and revert your changes. You are making unilateral decisions in the midst of a process—the very opposite of concensus building. — Neonorange (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not in anyway making unilateral decisions in the midst of a process and I've always been respecting the process. I corrected my error. It's actually "Twin Lakes" and not "Twin Lake". If you have any concern with the way the article was re-written, start a thread on the articles talk page and not here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is here—the effect of your edits is to blank the article—removing all the previous content and changing the subject of the article. The sequence of an afd should be discuss; have a consensus evaluated to have been reached, or not; implement the concensus. Not discuss, one participant unilaterally deletes content and changes subject, and creates an unrelated article. What's the purpose of the afd in the first place, then? Might as well toss this broken afd and begin a new afd on the new article. Or, more simply, and reasonably, you could just reverse your edits. — Neonorange (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no policy-based reason to revert my edits. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does. Your aggregated changes to Twin Lakes, New Jersey fall outside the permissible outcomes of an afd, as listed in the first paragraph of WP:AFD: "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy."
 * Converting an article into an entirely different article about a different subject isn't good practice in any case, much less during an AFD. You have essentially, during this AFD, deleted one article and created another. We started off with an article about a city; your edits changed it to an article about two small lakes which are already covered within Kittatinny Valley State Park. — Neonorange (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The article was formerly an utter hoax about a nonexistent city of 80,000. Now it is about a 29 acre  puddle of a lake, and referenced to a website that does not appear to qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, since it lacks an identified editorial board or an identified editor, and publishes material from local businesses who wish to promote themselves. Fails WP:N:notability]] and perhaps verifiability. Others above have noted that this may be "Twin Lake" which is adequately described in the article about a park. I don't see the point of a standalone article without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.  Edison (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article was created as a hoax, was tagged as a hoax and should have been speedily deleted as a hoax. There is nothing listed in the State of New Jersey locality search. There is no such place anywhere in Essex County or in the state that has the population as described. The one source provided in the repurposed article provides nothing more than geographic coordinates. Per WP:GEOLAND - "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." In the absence of any meaningful content, a mention in the article for where this lake is located might be appropriate. There is no justification for a standalone article, either for a hoax city or the real lake. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect to Kittatinny Valley State Park. Usually  we should  maintain edit history after a redirect to assist future editors, but not here, where the original article was a hoax.  (That purported map was easily identified as a map of Essex County, which doesn't have a municipality matching the description in the article.)  --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Arxiloxos. De Guerre (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2016 (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.