Santa Ynez Reservoir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:ONEEVENT.... while this policy applies explicitly to people, I see no reason this shouldn't be applied more broadly. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike natural lakes, reservoirs are not usually notable. To the extent that this one may attract passing attention, it is not the reservoir that is notable but a shortage of water to cope with a major conflagration, an urban administration story and a story about the enormity of the fire, rather than one about the water-filled hole. To the extent that it may count, it can be mentioned in the fire article. The shortage of fire engines and firefighters, and the fact that aircraft could not fight the fire during excessive wind speeds do not require separate articles either. Spideog (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's a bunch of news coverage of the reservoir pre-dating the fire that is available on Newspapers.com. Article needs to be buffed up so that it's not just about the fire, but the reservoir is notable enough. Seems to meet WP:GNG/WP:GEOFEAT. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's dozens more articles available on Newspapers.com going back decades covering the history of the reservoir. It definitely meets GNG requirements, it's just we didn't have an article made until now and this recent event prompted someone to make it. But it definitely is not a single event subject. Silverseren^C 18:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Significant coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article has been expanded since the deletion nomination, and now includes significant coverage from before the 2025 Palisades Fire. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For all the reasons listed above. Also, I don't think it would be a good idea to delete this, when the living example of what it is, shows up on the evening news. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SNOW per nom as worded - nom admits that WP:1E does not apply to this article. Now, I do agree with the sentiment which would be WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox; talk 13:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:GNG as a man made geographical feature. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]