Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Cranberry Lake

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 09:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cranberry Lake

non encyclopaedic. -- Mariocki ^TALK 04:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though it'd be nicer if someone could write someone coherent about this lake. --W(t) 04:06, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
• Delete, garbage K1Bond007 05:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC), Keep per revision. K1Bond007 03:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even pretend to be legitimate. Aerion//talk 05:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever. Content gets created. Content gets refined. If your only possible contribution to the "encyclopaedic" quality of this topic is to suggest its deletion within minutes of its creation, I suggest you acquaint or reacqaint yourself with the WikiWay.

Public WikiWay()
{
 If(live)
 {
 LetLive()
 }
 Else
 {
 WriteLine ("The WikiWay is twofold: pen and sword, in accord.")
 }
}

BTW, for my information, how does one create a "stub" topic on wikipedia? --Korby parnell 07:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think what Korby is trying to say is that the article has been rewritten. It is now much better than it's former self. And to Korby, I don't know what's up your ass but you can't expect anybody to wait around for that bad of an article to be rewritten. It should never been written like that in the first place. —Teknic^Talk/Mail 07:42, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm adding the "higher standard of quality" template. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:55, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup the rewrite. Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten article. Martg76 13:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, real place, I suppose, but I am highly dubious of much of the info in the rewrite. I removed the prattle about 'no fish' as a quick google search proved that incorrect. In addition, on a lake that small, it's hard to imagine a human-made dam involved, and neither google nor a topo map of the area had any evidence of such a dam (altho' there is a "Little Cranberry Dam" on nearby Cypress Island). Also, if you go to this topo map[1], click the "Large" radio button and select 1:100,000 scale in the dropdown and look at the legend, you will see that there is no way in hell tiny Fidalgo Island could have a '10 mile morain' there--2-3 miles, tops. There's at least four other "Little Cranberry Lake"s in the US alone--I wonder if someone is getting them mixed up. Niteowlneils 19:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Real lake. Possible opportunity for disambiguation given Niteowlneils comments.Capitalistroadster 23:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Its an interesting, encyclopedic article on a notable lake. :) -CunningLinguist 23:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rela place, though I can understand slapping a VfD notice on I know this lake like nobody else and live right down the street. To access Little Cranberry, which is a secret Gem in the Anacortes City Parks system, drive up 32nd Street to the very, very end, park your car, walk one block north along the swamp, take a left onto the trail, and then walk 1.25 miles in a west, northwest direction.. RickK 23:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now the article has been re-written I'm happy to change to keep but the disambiguation, as noted by Niteowlneils, should be cleared up. -- Mariocki ^TALK 01:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.