Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelm Pond

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kelm Pond

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG, WP:NGEO. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 04:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 04:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable and non-notable small body of water. Reads like a tourist guide. Searches find nothing about the body of water, just lots of refs to real estate in the area. Neiltonks (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated above, "unremarkable and non-notable". Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two mentions of Kelm Pond in Google Scholar: "The 50 m by 5 km Kelm Pond is layered anorthositic gabbro to gabbroic anorthosite with an ultramafic layer comprising phlog+oliv+spinel-bearing hornblende clinopyroxenite." and "The Kelm Pond body comprises high-Al clinopyroxene (with spinel exsolution)+forsterite+ phlogopite+spinel+hornblende and has been mostly serpentinized.". I have no idea what these mean... --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per wp:GEOLAND, and thanks to link provided by User:Malcolmx15. There has been substantial study of this unusual lake and rock formation. The article should be about both. It seems to me that "Kelm Pond" may be shorthand for the "Kelm Pond body" or some other full name for the magma-based rock formation that is a Sill (geology) type of pluton, i.e. it is a tabular sheet intrusion, presumably 50 metres (160 ft) by 5 kilometres (16,000 ft), formed by magma invading along a weak layer between sedimentary or other rock layers. The rock formation perhaps now creates the modern pond by forming a dam (as in common usage, not meaning a Dike (geology) which is another kind of pluton). Anyhow, there is plenty out there about this, and it is good to let the students and other scientists who are studying the geology of the area to continue to develop this. Let Wikipedia grow, don't shut down incipient efforts by potentially valuable future academicly-oriented editors. --do ncr am 04:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best instead and mention however as needed at the local community's article as there's at best nothing to suggest its own actual independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the Chestertown, New York article is about a hamlet, which is perhaps nearby but does not include Kelm Pond itself, and is not a geography / geology type article, and the info would be out of place. So mentioning this at a "local community" article and redirecting to there doesn't seem feasible, unless there is another potential redirect target that I don't see. --do ncr am 21:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. From doncram's comments, it sounds like there could be an interesting and encyclopedic article written about this body of water, but the current article isn't it. I'm tempted to say keep, because AfD is not for cleanup, but that's an argument which fits better on a topic which is more obviously notable. While I suspect there might be a decent article which could be written here, it's not obvious that's the case, so it would be a stretch to apply that argument here. So, move it to draft, socialize the existence of the draft on the appropriate geology-oriented wikiprojects, and hopefully something will grow here which can get moved back to mainspace eventually. I would not be opposed to a keep outcome, but incubating in draft seems better to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2016 (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.