Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nodlandsvatnet

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 per discussion and expansion during AFD. Davewild (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nodlandsvatnet

Nodlandsvatnet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Per List of lakes in Norway There are at least 450,000 fresh water lakes in Norway this is one of them, there is no evidence of notability in fact at this time of the contested prod the lake is not even listed on the List of lakes in Norway Lack of Notability is self evident. Per WP:NOT#DIR "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed" Jeepday (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• delete per nom. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep as deprodder: it's a lake! It can be seen on the maps this, and the Norwegian article, links to when you click on the coordinates. It is actually no small lake in a Norwegian context. I will strongly claim this kind of item is supposed to be in an encyclopedia, especially an encyclopedia without lack of space. I noticed it is a stub, and so is the article on the Norwegian Wikipedia it is taken from, but there is no doubt of the items existence- it is still a lake. When cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, I think a lake should be here. I have noted the general outcomes seems to be "Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable"- of course, this does not give much hint of size, but I personally think for an encyclopedia everything qualifying as a lake should be automatically notable, ie at least everything over 0.5 km² should be automatically notable for a Norwegian lake, as that's whats generally known as a lake in Norway. Greswik (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, there are over 450,000 lakes in Norway. There is no reason why this one is notable at all. The article has no information other than where it is and the size. While some of what you wrote is true, the lake, at 3.9 km2, it not a "major geographical feature." For heaven's sake, the Norwegian article has no information other than size and location either! And still no references or links! Delete. Reywas92^Talk 20:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Most of these 450,000 lakes (and I am not sure what that number really means, how do you count lakes?) are probably not worth separate articles (and I would guess most of them don't have names either). However, the lake in question here has some economic significance since it is one of the major reservoirs for hydroelectric production in the area, per this article which lists it as the second largest reservoir for the local power company (just after Spjodevatnet), with a capacity of 20 million cubic metres. It also has some recreative activity [1]. As for the notability of the subject, due to the economic significance, I would call this one comparable to Lake Wingra which is half the size of Nodlandsvatnet. However the article is very brief. Expanding the Eigersund article with geographical information about the lakes, and merging this article with that might be the best option. Outright deletion would remove information on what is a fairly large geographic feature, and I don't support that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as geographical location per above. The standard at List of lakes in Norway is arbitrary and has nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines, really, so it doesn't prevail over WP:AFDP per what Greswik said. No merge - if you have info, and are dissatisfied with the article, just expand it Sjakkalle. Punkmorten (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I gave it a shot [2]. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a geographic feature -- Whpq (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not a valid arguement. The new links above might warrant notability, but with 450,000+ lakes in Norway alone and millions more worldwide, and millions of other features, notability is not inherent. Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki isn't paper, and geogrpahic features are part of teh subject matter that is covered. And as found in common AFD outcomes, "Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable". -- Whpq (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As said above, one of 450,000 lakes is not a major geographical feature, even if it is big enough to recreate and use for energy. I would accept a merge if possible. if this passes, I may AfD some of the even smaller, less useful lakes together. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 29 November 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.