Third Lake (Fulton County, New York): PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography , United States of America ,  and New York .  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Minor geographic feature with no coverage by any RS.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  WP:GEOLAND states that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This has a couple paragraphs on Third Lake on pages 185-186. This , although not very much, gives some information about Third lake beyond statistics. This is a study conducted partially in the Third Lake, which could be discussed in the article. It's thin, but I think these three sources are enough to pass WP:GEOLAND . JML1148 ( talk | contribs ) 06:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Of the three sources when the article was nominated, GNIS sometimes is unreliable for feature types but this is confirmed as a lake by other sources, an archived version of the second source has been found, there is no requirement for sources to be available online, and more sources have been found. Peter James ( talk ) 08:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete NGEO requires this meet GNG, I am not seeing any sources in the article, above or in BEFORE that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 00:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 00:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete None of these sources pass WP:GNG and a quick search does seem to find anything SIGCOV about this lake. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Some of the coverage is significant, particularly source 2 currently in the article and the Google Books reference; it's just spread throughout several sections. An article combining this with other lakes in the area could be more useful, but this is better than nothing and there's no reason to delete. WP:SIGCOV : "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. " Peter James ( talk ) 18:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNIS does not pass WP:GNG as it is a database entry from an unreliable system to catalogue the name and location of places, which is not significant coverage, source 2 does pass WP:SIGCOV but I am unsure whether it would be independent, and source 3 is inaccessible to almost any reader/viewer of the article, which means I can't figure it out, but just based of the title of the book and where it's sourced, I'm going to presume that it is a passing mention of what fish are in said lake and how to access it. With that being said, one source debateably passes GNG and therefore, should be deleted. And yes, I did WP:BEFORE . Kline • talk to me! • contribs 23:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] GNIS is clearly not significant coverage but the second source already in the article and some of the others identified in the AFD are; articles survive AFD with a similar amount of coverage or less. Also there's an obvious merge target and another that could potentially be an article. The content meets policy requirements and the article arguably meets guideline requirements and there's so much in Wikipedia that could be deleted according to policy; deletion (of content or articles) would be an improvement in some cases but not here. Peter James ( talk ) 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you like to show me the book in the article and upload it, I'd be happy to look at it. Still, from my standpoint, I can only evaluate one source, which isn't even independent coverage since it is probably required to survey said lake by the state government. Not sure what else there is to do. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 18:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure about the book, there are the other sources mentioned here but not already in the article. And for a feature such as a lake it would make no sense to exclude government published sources from notability of a government owned lake but say the same sources contribute to the notability of one that is privately owned. They have been accepted for a long time as a main source for writing about geographical features, populated places and districts in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias before Wikipedia existed. Independent sources is more about ensuring NPOV and using coverage that is "from a disinterested perspective" - and dec.ny.gov is probably more neutral here than most travel guides. Peter James ( talk ) 20:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] ● Comment- Source 1 - GNIS - Unreliable & Source 2 - is about Ferris Lake Wild Forest PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 14:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I romoved source 2 PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 14:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:GEONATURAL . Lightburst ( talk ) 01:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete If all you can write about is "it exists" then it's about as notable as a local bus stop, and we shouldn't have an article about it.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The discussion above is closed.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion outcome: delete