This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia WP:PILLARS clearly states in the fifth pillar WP:5P5 that Wikipedia has no firm rules and the policies and guidelines "are not carved in stone". So, for that reason, I believe this article should remain safe from deletion and allowed to continue to be edited and updated as more information comes to light. Currently, the page is flagged for deletion because the original version lacked secondary sources and, as a man-made geographical location it "may not necessarily be notable". I have added the page's first secondary source in the form of an article from the Adirondack Journal, thus protecting the article from it's first violation of the guidelines. And, in light of current events - namely New York Gov. Cuomo's announced plan to close the Indian Point nuclear power plant and the developing debate over New York's state-wide energy debate - I believe that hydroelectric dams (and other renewable energy sources) are going to become increasingly discussed and will become, as man-made geographical locations, more notable. An example of this developing notoriety, and creation of future secondary sources, can be found in the research of Jill Hubley (link to her page: http://jillhubley.com/), who is developing an interactive research project on the safety of all of New York States dams. When her research is published it can be added to, as a secondary source, to all of New York's dams. Deleting this article will negatively effect the ongoing debate and contemporary research currently being undertaken by individuals interested in the debate over renewable energy within their communities. CarlsonC (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good points – I couldn't find a secondary source, so this is fair enough. Please try to find more secondary sources, however, since all articles should have multiple secondary sources. I wouldn't particularly argue that Wikipedia stubs have any effect on renewable energy debates, but whatever. -- Pingumeister(talk)18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's resolved then that we will leave the page in place and continue to add and edit secondary sources as they become available. I've started a dialogue with the Warrensburg Historical Society and will hopefully be able to bring some of their sources to the article in due time. CarlsonC (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NID has released their information for this dam (url to report: http://nid.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=838:4:0::NO). I'm not sure how to incorporate the specs of the dam (height, width, etc) into the info box. If someone knew how to do that, and wanted to incorporate that information into the article, the research is already done, I just don't know how to publish it.
NID Height (Ft.) 27.5,
Dam Length (Ft.) 288,
Dam Height (Ft.) 27,
Structural Height (Ft.) 22.5,
Hydraulic Height (Ft.) 27.5,
Spillway Type C,
Spillway Width 200,
NID Storage 500,
Max Discharge 9200,
Max Storage 500,
Drainage Area 554
Resolved