Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackinac Falls

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mackinac Falls

[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)

This started off as an OTRS ticket asking about the supposed falls, but I've done a fair amount of research and I simply cannot find any verification that this is anything more than an odd sounding with little or no further verification. The vast majority of the information in the article seems to be either WP:OR (based largely on the NOAA page) or from the interview given by the singular newspaper source. Everything else that I'm finding online is either a mirror of us or them. I mean, there's not even rebuttal about the existence. It might exist, or it might not, but we should not be the ones interpreting bathymetric soundings of ancient riverbeds trying to determine that. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:OR. Bigturtle how the hell did you make this article? In the orignal version of it, the only source is this news piece that's still in it, but nowhere is the term "Mackinac Falls" used, so you just made it up. WP:TROUT for you. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Conflict of interest: no explicit position on question of deletion. However, definitive evidence exists for the existence of the channel down which water flowed from Lake Chippewa to Lake Stanley. Additional citations posted in this article. New Lake Stanley article created, with citations, as a gesture of respect to the skeptics whose views are set forth here. Bigturtle (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Scholar for several combinations of "Mackinac""Falls" did not yield anything that would establish notability. As an aside, both Lake Stanley/Stanley lowstand and Lake Chippewa are undoubtedly notable under GNG and especially when considering that they are climatologically unusual. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There should be a section on the Mackinac Channel in the History section of Straits of Mackinac. There aren't sufficient sources to support a stand-alone article on the waterfall which I only found mentioned in passing (e.g. [1] and [2] (p.10)).--Pontificalibus 12:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dartslilly (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2019 (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.