Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zesławicki Lagoon

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zesławicki Lagoon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small artificial reservoir in suburban Krakow; fails WP:GNG. Both sources in the article are WP:USERGENERATED; a BEFORE search does not unearth any additional qualifying sources. Under WP:NGEO, an artificial infrastructure entity qualifies for notability under GNG and otherwise redirects to the notable feature that prompted its creation. In this case, the river the the lagoon impounds is not notable and thus, without qualifying sources, neither its the lagoon itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't translated these but a search for "Zalew Zesławicki" brings up [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I'm not sure if all of these pass GNG, for instance the last one is just a single sentence, but there's at least sources. SportingFlyer T·C 06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its likely notable as a geographic feature. There will be the countries water body reference i.e. a Bathymetrical register that describes width/height/depth and 100 other properties. scope_creep^Talk 08:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not listed in the official Polish directory of bodies of water: WYKAZ NAZW WÓD STOJĄCYCH (LIST OF NAMES OF STANDING WATERS). Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the area surrounding the lagoon is a park, recognized for the bird-watching that can be done there. (See the references.) The parking available there sounds like further evidence of the local council regarding the location as important for recreation (including bird-watching), although perhaps the parking is also used by water department staff. Together with everything else, this adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain Since you mentioned references. I've looked into this; the article was written without any refs on pl wiki, then refs were added but likely a lot of content they have (based on my cursory check) is copied from pl wiki (and the refs are not reliable - blogs or like), so we are dealing with likely Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS. Only RS I see is a single sentence in an academic source. I am afraid there is too little to add here to arrive at notability. Side-note: I've nominated this for deletion at pl wiki, maybe someone there will find better sources. pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:06:02:Zalew Zesławicki _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be sensible to relist this again pending the result of that discussion - not that both languages need to have the same result, but sources might be found more easily there. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note there are only keep !votes so far (three of them) on the Polish deletion discussion. Know the logical fallacy that different languages have different standards, but still see no problem with keeping this here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in academic sources or books. It exists, but seems like a Wikidata entry something in Wikivoyage's entry for Kraków(?) would be enough. I can't see how this meets WP:GNG given the weak sources seen in here and on pl wiki - just some mentions in niche pages about local tourist attractions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.