Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Palmer

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. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Palmer

This AfD was delayed in posting to the AfD list: The completion date should be delayed accordingly. It was posted correctly at 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC). 14:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Only local notability, better suited as a sentence or paragraph in University_of_Toledo#Miscellaneous_facts, if this article title exists at all it should be a redirect to a more famous place with a similar name, such as Palmer Lake, Colorado davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nom says delete see above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article when first created earlier was speedy deleted as it stated that 'Lake Palmer is a puddle in the parking lot'. Quite obviously a 'joke' entry, it was recreated as is and I tagged it for speedy again as previously deleted material but as it hadn't had a discussion this was rejected. I then put a PROD tag on it with an explanation and this was removed and now we are at AfD all discussing a puddle in a car park. The author must be having a heck of a laugh at us! Paste ^Talk 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the real laugh will come when this AfD is widely ignored and it is relisted as "needing further discussion," with a !vote of 2-1. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't even deserving of its spot on the UT page, let alone its own page. Jedlink (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's unverifiable, and pretty trivial. Even if sourced, probably not worth more than a brief mention on the UT page, if that. Silverfish (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks references to show notability. (If it were a dot on a map, would people come trooping in to claim it was inherently notable?) Edison (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. I speedily deleted the first appearance of this article as nonsense (the version saying it was just a collection of water in the parking lot), and the author recreated it with "references". The current version of the article doesn't really meet the speedy deletion criteria, but let's be realistic: Do we really need an article about a parking lot that floods out? It's akin to having an article about the pond in the back of my office building, even though the pond is there permanently, and I could probably find some references to it in its watershed district. We really don't need an article about a puddle in a parking lot. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment too bad IAR/snow-close/delete isn't an accepted consensus option. Or is it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (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.