- 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Loch Beag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Over a year no sources, vague definition and nebulous name, etc. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Prior to this May 4th edit the article was about a specific place, albeit vague. It was probably the location in the Sound of Arisaig vicinity which was covered by this CEFAS report in 2015. For context see the map on PDF p23 and this description on p7: "Loch Beag is located within the Lochaber district of Highland Council on the west coast of Scotland. The loch comprises a small inlet at the head of Loch nan Uamh, which itself opens at the western end to the Sound of Arisaig. The Ardnish peninsula boarders the loch to the south. Loch Beag is 1.2 km in length, has a width of approximately 500 m and a maximum recorded depth of 21 m." and maybe the location for the Commons bird recording on the Common eider page. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If the location can be positively determined, revert to an article about a specific loch. The current article is WP:NOT#DICT. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Scottish toponymy, but may be too fine a detail for that article. The information that Loch Beag is a common name and means small can still be included in a specific article. SpinningSpark 14:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, we may as well make the article about the loch identified by AllyD (located at 56°53′10N 5°44'10W) since we have a source for that. It will probably be impossible to determine for sure what the original intention was unless the author comes forward, which seems unlikely. SpinningSpark 15:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Usually, I avoid substantial repurposing of an article during AfD discussion. In this case, however, as recent edits had created the circumstance of the AfD rationale, I have in this edit restored, extended and referenced the previous version. I had previously been considering whether to propose a redirect to Sound of Arisaig as a possible option, but I think the news and scientific report sources now in the article are sufficient for WP:GEOLAND. AllyD (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Current state & sources are fine, possible subject shift notwhithstanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Re to the point made by Epinoia below - the referenced "Scottish Sanitary Survey Report: Loch Beag" [1] is practically a monograph on the region, including sections on agriculture, wildlife, hydrography, meteorology... this is about as good as it gets for non/thinly-populated locations. There can be no question that "information beyond statistics and coordinates" (the actual requirement set out at WP:GEOLAND) exists in spades here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:GEOLAND demands "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources" - two of the references cited are about contaminated shellfish, not about the geography or geology or history of Loch Beag itself - does not meet WP:NGEO which requires meeting WP:GNG (and even meeting GNG does not guarantee notability for places) - Epinoia (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that in-depth coverage about shellfish fishing in Loch Beag is not about Loch Beag is a weasel rationalisation of a conclusion already reached. Likewise for the Argument that in-depth coverage of sewage contamination in Loch Beag is not about Loch Beag. I also note that, contrary to your claim, the source referred to by Elmidae above devotes several pages to the geography and hydrography of the loch. SpinningSpark 07:45, 22 May 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.