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.
Lake is not notable. All that is known is its location (and hence also elevation) and uninsightful assertion, from its name, that it is named for a bachelor who lived nearby. I presume that was either a) simply made up by the commercial author of a typical place names book, which just asserts "Bachelor lake, in Stark, was named for a lone homesteader there, unmarried" while in fact it was named for a childhood pet or a song or a place where someone grew up or in honor of their uncle or whatever; or maybe b) there was a bachelor there, but in either case it is not interesting or encyclopedic and does not suffice to open a Wikipedia article. Note, there has been a fairly wide misapprehension that Wikipedia is a gazetteer about lakes, while that is not true. This does not meet wp:GNG or wp:GEOLAND or any other criteria for existence. This is similar to recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax Lake, where all that was known is the location and an assertion it was named for where someone came from. Doncram (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brown County, Minnesota, where the lake is mentioned. I can't find any information about this feature except a couple of brief mentions that only establish existence. If the lake is not deemed to be a likely search term, then I'm fine with deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that redirect idea; we should consider alternatives to deletion. I see the county article does, oddly, have a Geography subsection "Lakes", with a list of names of lakes and the only reference being a link to Google maps. I am inclined to simply delete that list there; it makes sense for county articles to list towns and other populated places, but about lakes, it could merely be said "As can be seen from looking at a map, the county has a number of lakes." Which is true for any county in Minnesota. There is no subsection for rivers or forests or anything besides "Major highways" and "Adjacent counties". Substantial rivers seem more interesting to me, and are covered in prose discussion in the geography section, where it is also given that "611 square miles (1,580 km2) is land and 7.4 square miles (19 km2) (1.2%) is water"; that alone seems like the right level of coverage about ponds, lakes, whatever, to me. If one were to expand more about geography it seems to me there should be more discussion about the 98.8% which non-water-covered land, instead.
I further see that three of the other listed lake names link to articles similar to this one, with no information besides location and an assertion of naming reason attributed to the same Minnesota place names book. The place names book itself cites no sources for anything, it reads like it is passing along rumors/speculation, in my reading, as I may have suggested above. Anyhow personally I think deletion followed by deletion of that mention at the county article seems appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; each of Minnesota's 10,000+ natural lakes are notable as explained in Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), given that "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Instead of being redirected or outright deleted, the lake articles should be expanded with details like surface area, fishing opportunities, etc.– Gilliam (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, surface area is a statistic, not a notability-establishing fact. The idea that merely knowing it has a name and where that name could have come from is notability is utterly absurd. This is not information of substance whatsoever. So can you provide the content it could be expanded with? It's a generic small body of water that no one has ever written anything of substance about apparently. Reywas92Talk02:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - with a bit more research, I discovered that this is not just a natural lake, it is a protected natural lake per the Minnesota DNR which classified it as "Natural Environment (NE)—This classification is intended for those waters needing a significant amount of protection because of their unique natural characteristics or their unsuitability for development and sustained recreational use." NE has the "most restrictive development standards." It clearly passes V and N per geo features. More sources in my iVote below. AtsmeTalk📧16:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap nobody cares. You're acting like this is some great body of water that a bunch of official people decided was worthy and proclaimed to the public "Bachelor is special!" when in fact it was just mentioned in a table on a state report on the Cottonwood River (Minnesota), which administratively determined that since the river is polluted, some bodies in its watershed are at risk. Countless places are "protected" to various extents by falling under a variety of zoning and development rules – things don't get their own articles just because they can't be bulldozed at will. If you wanted to summarize the results of this study in the river's article that could be nice, but the idea that every concept barely mentioned in a routine hundred-page report that is not independently covered needs its own article is nuts. We are WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Or are you going to do this for the rest of the millions of tiny lakes and streams out there? This still has zero sources that meet not just the "significant coverage" requirement but a has-a-single-complete-sentence-written-about-it expectation. Reywas92Talk22:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down, please. Per WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If that wasn't the case, I would have assumed a much different position. AtsmeTalk📧23:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepWP:GEOLAND#4. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. Minnesota has a requirement that a lake be at least 10 acres (bachelor lake is 97 acres). Wisconsin has no such requirement. What that means is that lakes in Minnesota are notable, but in Wisconsin any old pond can be called a lake. Looks like a good fishing spot, Here is a 1943 map of Bachelor Lake. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? Looks like a good fishing spot? Seems like you were fooled by fake news. There is NOTHING valid, besides the location of the lake, in that hookandbullet.com "source" about fishing. It suggests that it has info about fishing at Bachelor Lake, but it does not. Lightburst, I assume you did not read it? That is like other commercial series of webpages ostensibly providing information about lakes, based purely on the coordinates. Why not pad the article out with assertions about weather in the general area, based on just the coordinates, too? I think there must be a "source" for that too. [Later: actually some or all of these ad pages do in fact have junk weather stuff, which I didn't see. However it is either entirely made up or is current weather info from the general area, generated by some lookup of a weather service based on the coordinates alone. It is manufactured, as if it was about the lake, but is not. And in this case it is supposedly current weather, which is not for us to use in the encyclopedia. The other kind of useless weather stuff which could be manufactured would be statements about average weather in the state of Minnesota or other large area in general. --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC) ][reply]
And the "lakeplace.com/lakefinder" source, yeah that is another commercial site. It suggests it has photos showing the lake, but clicking brings you only to ... Google maps.
About the 1943 map, well, that is not a source to say anything about the lake, either. From Google maps, we already knew there is a lake there.
Selective quoting from wp:GEOLAND doesn't exactly convince me. How about its statement that This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject (while maps do contribute to verifying existence). --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The 1943 map shows Bachelor lake and it was certainly notable throughout the history of Brown County and Minnesota. And the links I have provided do not confer notability. However you missed this on the fishing spot link so I will help you So you're interested in fishing Bachelor Lake. As fishermen, we know there are times when our favorite spots are just not active so we built our Hot Spots feature to show you where the fish are biting in the area of Bachelor Lake. Now you'll know where catches are being recorded in the general area, and you can plan your day on the water. Check out our Fishing Times tab to determine when the fish will be most active. To find Bachelor Lake enter the 44.256905 latitude, and -94.651367 longitude coordinates into your GPS device or smart phone. If you need fishing tackle, or are looking for a fishing guide or fishing charter please visit Tackle, Guides, Charters IMO it is plain to see that WP:GEOLAND is met. Perhaps you should have done a thorough WP:BEFORE instead of attacking !voters who disagree with you. You have come at me like a snarly editor. Perhaps you should realize that I too am volunteering my time to address this frivolous nomination. Making snarly comments like this has no place in an AfD. Why not pad the article out with assertions about weather in the general area...Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused what the point of this fishing website is...The data for nearby Zanders Lake is identical to that of Bachelor Lake. This is autogenerated based on this website's model for local weather, not information that could be included in the article or anything providing notability. The 1943 map shows that the lake existed and had been named by that point, not "notable throughout the history". Reywas92Talk04:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I guess that Lightburst perceived my comments as "snarly", but I perceive that quote differently: it is one of a few variations of boilerplate text used in all that fish-finder company's advertising pages, with nothing about the individual lake except its coordinates. Sorry, you might think that it is going to provide fishermen's actual comments about fishing in this lake, but it does not. Notice each of the comments is incoherent junk, not a real comment from a fisherman. Each indicates it is continued elsewhere, but if you click you just reach more ads, don't even get the complete (bogus) comment. And the comments are even labelled as being about not-this-lake, and they are repeated others of the series of ad pages. We should not provide links to those ad pages; they are a disservice to readers. --Doncram (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, still posting duplicative response) I'm confused, what's a single fact in the fishing website that can be included in the article? It appears to be an autogenerated page merely establishing it is a lake that you need a fishing license to fish in. And that's not a map of the lake, it's a map of the township in which the lake is located: "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." Sure, in Minnesota it is in fact a lake, but that doesn't mean it's notable. Reywas92Talk02:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Fishing spot, not to confer notability. IMO a 92-97 acre lake is notable per WP:GEOLAND as a natural feature. It is a major feature of Brown County Minn. Historically named Bachelor lake - not numbered. I respect your opinion in many AfDs. My reading of Geoland differs from yours. Lightburst (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the seventh-largest lake even in this small county. If it were "a major feature" there would be something substantive written about it by a human, not just existence on an old map and an autogenerated fishing time table. Reywas92Talk04:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked into User:MB's suggestion that the lake be redirected to List of lakes of Minnesota. I acknowledge that now there are 3 pieces of info about this lake, arguably:
Location (coordinates)
An assertion of "explanation" for name of lake. Which I scoff at: I don't believe the source, frankly, which itself cites no sources, and is just making a probable-reasonable guess that it is named for a bachelor. It doesn't provide the name of a person or any other information, contributing to my believing the source manufactured a sentence as part of building a saleable book. We should not manufacture stuff ourselves, or accept manufactured stuff.
Size of lake, apparently 92 acres in 1968. From a 1968 state survey of lakes greater than 10 acres in size, which also reports an assertion of maximum depth and a measure of clarity of water in 1968, too, as can be seen in the table at List of lakes of Minnesota, which is sourced from there. Apparently this is one of the 11,842 lakes in Minnesota that justify the state's claim to be a land of 10,000 lakes. Previous wikipedia editors have sort of chosen to list all of these 11,842 lakes in the list-article, apparently, but [I think] the table there has way fewer than that number. [Because I looked at the 1968 study and saw that] Many or most of the 11,842 lakes were just numbered bodies of waters, without any name, in 1968, and I am guessing that is why listing them couldn't really be done. But there is a row for this Bachelor Lake there.
It would be acceptable to me for this article to be redirected to List of lakes of Minnesota#Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota). Note that this is actually better for readers, in providing more information to them, because it shows the lake in context: by sorting on the size column one can see its size relative to all the other lakes listed there. (On my computer screen, i can page down 65 times among lakes bigger than this one. [which would be 65 times 10 or 15 or 20 or so, hence 6,500 or 13,000 so comparable to the whole 11,842 size]) --Doncram (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC) [Added some refinements in square brackets just now. --Doncram (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Here are a few sources for you - how the lake got its name and other such historical information
Comment: The first four "books" are reprints of the same line "Bachelor lake in Stark was named for a lone homesteader there". So that is really one source. Collectively these add up to just a few trivial mentions that confirm it exists. As quoted above, Geoland#4 requires enough sources with verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. That has not been demonstrated. MB04:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There is more out there. But I believe I spent enough time on it. I improved the article; if it is kept I will improve it further. But for now it’s best to for me to move on. Lightburst (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to find sources, but in fact those sources provide nothing more. As MB notes, four of them are copies of the same 1920 "Places in Minnesota" type book, just available from different places, and with just the one lame-in-my-view assertion. Numbers 5 and 6 have passing mention of this lake, among other lakes in Brown County, with nothing to add. I brought up the 7th one, the "History of Brown County" one but could not find mention there. However Lightburst identified that one as merely a "mention", too. I do believe several people have spent enough time on this, already, so I am not pinging anyone to come back. And by the way IMHO there was no improvement of the article besides adding assertion of its size (which already appears in the List of Lakes of Minnesota article); other addition appears to be padding with no content. We don't want the same uninformative padding put into 10,000 separate articles that yes, the state conducted a study and this one was on its list, which tells us nothing about the lake. Rather, we have one list-article that does that for all at once, and gives info for each lake in relative context. That's my view, thanks. --Doncram (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I look at that as having 3 sources. GNIS for location (counts zero towards notability). The one about size of lake being bogus, begging the question of what is the source for the webpage (needs to be deleted). And three pointing to Upham, which you might be thinking are independent, but are not at all. It is the same one sentence about naming, repackaged to be sold as a book again (and i think Upham's unsourced speculation is bogus to report in Wikipedia). Perhaps Upham and his naming stuff is worth one sentence to mention at the list-article, something like "For anyone interested in speculation about the reason for any lake's name, try this unreliable source: [link to one of Upham's books]." We have to agree to disagree about what amounts to an informative article. --Doncram (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have discussed the article in this AfD. I have improved the article during the AfD ...I called out our guideline which guides us to keep lakes such as this. For your part you have targeted the article for deletion, and then you have been snarky and dismissive in your responses, ...you have doggedly pursued deletion despite any evidence presented or article improvements. You and I have created walls of texts to reiterate the same positions. You flatly reject the guideline in WP:GEOLAND#4. By now everyone knows your position and my position about the notability of this 97 acre lake. I do hope you do not diminish/fillet the article based on your determination to delete. You should realize we have other actual policies - (the following are not guidelines) WP:ATDWP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. I am unwatching this now. Lightburst (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to be an "inclusionist" generally, and I do accept GEOLAND, ATD, PRESERVE, NOTPAPER. For my part i have really considered others' points of view and discussed the actual content of the suggested sources. I acknowledged points and was not inflexible ("dogged") in favor of one outcome. It would help the discussion if Lighthouse would acknowledge some things, say that the advertising/fishing stuff is bogus, which they have not. I would acknowledge there is room for disagreement about the merit of Upham's assertions (and one possible outcome which could be discussed would be to add mention of Upham to the row in the list-table, would that meet Lighthouse's wish for coverage of that?). I took suggestions for alternatives seriously and took a step to making "redirect to list" work out better (set up anchor). --Doncram (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a well-attested geographic feature. The nominator makes speculative presumptions about the origin of the name. The name is cited to Warren Upham, whose work on Minnesota place names is cited over 3,000 times in Wikipedia. That source is undisputedly reliable. Kablammo (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Reslist due to NAC by sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guy (help!) 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota. "It's named after some guy who once lived nearby, and it is in a geological database." is not a basis for an article. Diffusing minimal content over a multitude of dubious, unexpandable microstubs is the worst way to present it. Merge it into a table of other individually non-notable landforms. ReykYO!13:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles for lakes are kept just like ones for small villages and other places as long as they are on a government database. If you want to change how things are done, then do so in one discussion and change the rules. No sense having the same arguments for thousands of articles like this all the time. DreamFocus14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota. Obvious WP:ATD, and WP:GEOLAND very specifically does not make the same notability provisions for lakes as it does for villages: lakes/rivers etc are 'often notable provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist' and 'the number of known sources should be considered'. In other words, mere existence on a database is not sufficient. Hugsyrup15:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most KEEP votes were done before this AFD was reopened and I and one other person from the ARS showed up on our own, there no posting there asking anyone to look at this situation. We both gave reasons for our votes. Two people who show up of a lot of AFDs showing up at a single one and agreeing something should be kept, is not a "block voting machine". Kindly assume good faith and focus on the discussion. DreamFocus16:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those WP:AGF is not a suicide pact situations. Normally, yes, I'd WP:AGF that the block voting is coincidental, but a while back (for the VPR thread), I researched it for myself, and I no longer AGF about this. You, and three others, routinely !vote keep as a block, almost always with the same throwaway !vote rationals (like "Keep not paper, preserve, before"). There are other who participate in the blocks occasionally, but there are four core editors in this block. This is disruptive and it needs to stop. Every time I see it in an AfD I participate in, I will point it out, and hopefully you guys will eventually get the hint and change your approach to deletion discussions. – Levivich17:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to avoid !voting to help the encyclopedia just because it displeases you. Collegial following is allowed, as I have told you on your talk page. Your accusations assume bad faith. And now I see everyone I ever had friction with turning up to sink the AfD. It is a maddening situation made worse by your aspersions. Lightburst (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will be honest, I cannot be bothered to read every word above - (seems like a lot of words regarding the notability of a small lake in Minnesota). I think our WP:SNG is clear in regard to lakes. Per WP:GEOLAND. Named natural features are often notable...This includes...lakes, streams ...etc. We keep lakes. Wm335td (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but one of those "..." is provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist and another of those "..." is The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. I can't figure out why keep !voters citing GEOLAND aren't addressing these parts of GEOLAND. – Levivich19:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many sources do you want? The article has sources: one source dating back more than 100 years. It is a fact that we have less stringent requirements for GEOLAND. For instance - streams are kept, yet there is rarely any secondary coverage of streams. And we keep small villages and other places as long as they are populated or on a government database. This AfD seems like too much hand wringing over a small lake. Wm335td (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the number of sources, it's their quality. These sources don't let us say anything about Bachelor Lake other than that it exists and its name is Bachelor Lake. As Reyk said, "'It's named after some guy who once lived nearby, and it is in a geological database' is not a basis for an article." In fact, the article has more information about another lake named Bachelor Lake, than about this Bachelor Lake. That's how little information we have about this Bachelor Lake. Populated areas, of course, are treated differently by GEOLAND than lakes and streams, and if there's other articles about non-notable streams, well, you know the rest. – Levivich20:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that Warren Upham's book is cited in several hundred other Wikipedia articles for establishing the notability of other geographical locations. Furthermore, keeping this article would conform to our official set of rules on geographical features. This was noted by others to be covered in GEOLAND #4. Patiodweller (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the virtually all of those were by the same user who has polluted Wikipedia with thousands of these micro-stubs, which still does not establish notability. This unilateral decision to mass-produce articles without meaningful content or substantive sources is not precedent that the lack thereof is perfectly fine. Reywas92Talk06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very strange that you consider adding thousands of geographic facts to an encyclopaedia to be pollution. Which is more helpful to building an encyclopaedia—adding facts, however minor, or deleting pages because they don't conform to the pedantic details of the guidelines? SpinningSpark13:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting pages is definitely more encyclopedic than adding minor facts. Semi-automatically-generating thousands of stand-alone stubs about lakes is spam; it has no part in building an encyclopedia, because WP:NOTTRIVIA, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, etc. Deleting pages is curation, which is part of the encyclopedic process. – Levivich16:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Named geographic features are not trivia. They are just the sort of information that should be in an encyclopaedia. They just don't compare with minor fictional characters or game items. This is pretty much what GEOLAND is all about. NOTTRIVIA is particularly not relevant here. It is about trivia sections in articles, not article subjects. SpinningSpark18:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-automatically-generating thousands of stand-alone stubs about lakes is spam; it has no part in building an encyclopedia. Named geographic features can be listed on a table. They don’t all need a stand alone page. There are millions of named geographic features in the world. They don’t each need their own page. And that’s what GEOLAND says. – Levivich19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Delete if the current version remains of the article with failed verification, use of multiple versions of the same book (should use the most recent) and failed verification.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A unilateral decision to create lots of low-quality non-notable articles does not justify the existence of one because of the presence of the others. These likewise lack any substantive content or sources and should be next to go. Reywas92Talk06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added text and sources. Not the article it was when deletion was first proposed. Under WP:Before, the standard for proposing deletion includes what the article potentially can become. WP:Hey. Given the present state of the article and the sourcing, WP:Before was honored more in the breach, more than in the observance. 7&6=thirteen (☎)04:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still baffled by which of these sources is substantive and provides notability. Goingoutside.com doesn't seem particularly reliable – how the hell does the presence of a campsite at a different lake 5 miles away provide notability for this one?? I've removed that irrelevance, and none of the remaining basic statistics goes beyond what is or can be listed in the main list or Stark Township, Brown County, Minnesota or Brown County, Minnesota. Reywas92Talk06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still baffled at your obdurate refusal to acknowledge policy and the present state of the article. WP:PreserveWP:GNG. However, I WP:AGF and your befuddlement (or deliberate blindness) is irrelevant. No matter how much you repeat it, it's not up to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to be befuddled at what "significant coverage" means – which of these sources provides it? This is an utter failure of GNG and an unfortunate refbomb – you added six about the state having lots of lakes and another with the same name. I absolutely support PRESERVING content – all facts specific to this lake are already listed at List of lakes of Minnesota!Reywas92Talk18:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reywas. None of these sources meet GNG or provides information that would satisfy GEOLAND. Rather than refbombing, I wish a keep !voter would just post the WP:THREE best sources for us to evaluate. – Levivich16:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list. I'm unconvinced by "keep" !voters linking to GEOLAND without going any further. Reading GEOLAND, it says that populated (or formerly populated) geographic features are presumed to be notable, but un-populated features like lakes only if "there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article". Which is exactly the argument that was made by the proposer. ApLundell (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mostly due to Gilliam's arguments. Each of Minnesota's 10,000+ natural lakes is notable because they must meet a criteria. They must be at least ten acres, and I would argue that any article on a lake meeting this criteria should be kept. Eliteplus (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment*Redirect. A big thing missed by those voting "Keep" is that readers are better served by linking to a row about this lake in a table which provides overall context. The table row has all substantial content that was in the article, and more in fact, and readers can see where this stands relative to other lakes of Minnesota. I nominated the lake for deletion, which would be appropriate due to lack of substantial content included or available, if there were not an alternative to deletion. I have developed content at Brown County, Minnesota and at List of lakes of Minnesota. The reader is better served by being directed to either. --Doncram (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)as an experienced editor you know you cannot vote twice. Your AfD nomination and many many comments make your position clear. In addition you placed this out of order. In any event we all only get one !vote. Lightburst (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a strong advocate for keeping articles of geographical features that can be described meaningfully in more than a few sentences, and many articles of Minnesotan lakes aren't even at that level. No need to redirect or merge. Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is broad consensus, as documented in GEOLAND, that we should keep articles of geographical features that can be described meaningfully in more than a few sentences. The question is: can this lake be described meaningfully in more than a few sentences? I have yet to see more than a few sentences written about this lake anywhere. Have you seen more than a few sentences written about this lake anywhere? If so, can you post the link? Thank you. – Levivich04:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: It can of the nominator will stop diminishing the article. I have asked the editor on talk pages, at ANI and here to stop filleting the article. Several editors are working on establishing notability. It is bad form for this nominator to continue to erase the article. Also bad form to !vote twice. I am putting a diff there in case the erasure extends to the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, the "pre-fillet" version is barely more than 100 words. I've literally not seen the article, or any source, exceed a few sentences, combined. Look, it is an indisputable fact that everything we have to say about this lake can be said in either the list of lakes, or in the county article. There is no WP:PAGESIZE concern here. So the only question is: do we have a stand-alone page about the lake, or just include the lake in the list of lakes or in the county article? I'm not seeing any reason for why we should have a stand-alone page about this lake, whereas I do see a good reason for including it on the list of lakes (the reason being that it gives the reader context for the information about this lake). – Levivich05:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: you must see that we need to respect the AfD process and the good faith attempts of editors to build. The nominator should take a step back as I have tried to do. This seems to be a no-consensus AfD at the moment. And we are only here because the nominator refused to respect the result of the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: I am steadfastly opposed to commenting on AfD nominators' conduct in an AfD. This page should only be used for discussing the topic–not the state of the article, not the nominator, not the nomination statement, but only the topic and whether the topic should have a stand-alone page. There's a related ANI thread where editor conduct is being discussed, and editors who want to discuss that can do so over there. There is no need to make editors who want to discuss whether the topic should have a stand-alone page have to read extra text about irrelevant side-issues. I could go blank the article and replace it with "ha ha f u everybody" and it still wouldn't be relevant to whether or not the topic should have a stand-alone page. – Levivich06:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - passes WP:NFEAT: On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability. In addition to the cited sources in the article, see [2] - important enough for MEQB Minnesota Environmental Quality Board to monitor & stock its fish populations, and [3] - for its historic significance, the preservation of its description in "Minnesota geographic names; their origin and historic significance". this paper: Decrepitation of sphalerite from Bachelor Lake. Progress Report - Temperature-Pressure Research of Hydrothermal Mineral Deposits 2(7): 132, 1950.WP:V is established, and enough sources to establish notability (not fame or popularity) for inclusion as a geographical feature. AtsmeTalk📧03:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Added 2 sources, struck one. 13:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The more research, the more sources I find - Minnesota DNR classifies it as "Natural Environment (NE)—This classification is intended for those waters needing a significant amount of protection because of their unique natural characteristics or their unsuitability for development and sustained recreational use." NE has the "most restrictive development standards." AtsmeTalk📧14:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible I misread what came up in the search - human err - so until I find what I actually saw, (or think I saw), I have stricken the source. The rest remains because it still passes as a geograhic feature for inclusion. AtsmeTalk📧13:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, right. No offense, Atsme, but the more manufactured arguments I see here, the more I lose respect for ... the process or something. I simply do not believe that report is about this Bachelor Lake, rather than the other Minnesota one, the one in Michigan, the one in Florida, the one in Quebec, or any of probably dozens elsewhere. Even if it were about decrepitation of sphalerite in this Bachelor Lake, I doubt there is substantial content about this Bachelor Lake relevant to adding to this article. Please do go ahead and pay $29.95 to get a copy of the report in PDF file, and share a copy to me, and I promise to be fair in commenting about its content. Or if you distrust me because I happen to be critical of other padding that has been added to the article in a biased fashion, then share to someone we could mutually agree is trustworthy in evaluating it. Otherwise, no dice. --Doncram (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - it was past my bedtime, I was on the iPad (which can be hard on the eyes) and it appears I inadvertently conflated info. I struck that one source, and added 3 more that establish V and N. It's not a lake that is famous for recreation, etc. but it is an important one in the watershed; therefore it is being monitored and protected. AtsmeTalk📧14:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is too much peripheral information in this thread. The focus should just be assessing the status of the article in comparison to notability guidelines. I feel this does meet the guidelines for named geographical features. Behindthekeys (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User: Doncram and User: CaroleHenson I write to STOP your conduct and make an accusation. I had hoped that we could work through this in WP:AGF. But your conduct requires a response.
We have a twice pending AFD. Some of the editors who want to delete or merge this article have removed a lot of text and references. For a lot of claimed reasons.
In a score of edits you have systematically gutted both the content and the cited sources of the article. While some of these could fairly be said to be arguable at the Talk:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota) article talk page – where they can and should be discussed – and I will join the discussion there.
But the whole pattern and timing suggests you are going beyond that.
Here are some of the pertinent edits I am talking about. The reader needs to look at their content:
here No. 3 including this edit summary: “Please stop destroying the article so that it suits your desire to delete. Several editors are building and you are undoing their work. Wait until the AfD ends. Your opinion is one, and you are undoing the work of several.”
Removing the sources from the article does not make them cease to exist. To the extent that WP: Notability is involved in your claims at AFD, you are simply trying to obscure the facts. See WP:Before, which mandates looking at notability in the broadest sense.
Winchel, N.H.; Upham, Warren (1884). Geology of Minnesota. Vol. 1. John Smith and Harrison State Printers, Pioneer Press Company, Printers. p. 560. Retrieved 9 December 2019.
I understand that WP:ANI has parallel matters. I have avoided going there.
The fate of the article should be fairly evaluated. And not based on the Bowdlerized version the deletionists now proffer.
The nominator’s opinion has been made clear by many comments, and the nomination. Now it is up to the community to evaluate and the nominator should take a step back. 7&6=thirteen (☎)14:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, we do not remove another editor's comments. Your actions precipitated this section. Good that the participants and the XfD closer see. Perhaps it may be hatted. You are also free to discus it on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The conduct of the AFD participants and their vandalization/Bowdlerization/destruction/rewrite (if we disregard the pattern and timing and WP:AGF) of the article (and what the article is and should be) are pertinent and fair game on this page. I am willing to discuss the merits of edits on the article talk page. But rigging the system needs to be called out here. Do not remove my comments. We all know better. 7&6=thirteen (☎)15:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am gobsmacked that the thoughtful edits I made last night to made the article BETTER were reverted. If you look at the history of the edits, the edits corrected the following:
Unreliable sources, like a real estate marketing page with no indication of the source of the material
Using multiple editions, some 100 years old when one recent version works
Failed verification
If you looked, too, you would notice that I also added content. I stand by my edits. My intent was NOT to gut the article, it was put it in the best state of what a "keep" would look like. Unlike a lot of people here, I don't really care which way it turns out. But I believe that the content should follow WP guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No disrespect was intended. Sorry to add to your distress.
Getting rid of the books shows the lack of historical perspective.
Whether your "low water" or my "high water" or "present state" edits has nothing to do with whether there is (or could be – see WP:Before – enough to keep the article. This is not a zero sum game where we have to declare winners and losers. The article should be kept on its merits. 7&6=thirteen (☎)19:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOLOLOL "Historical perspective"??? Just because they're old books doesn't mean this is a historical place, and there are not books rather duplicates of the same less-than-a-sentence on being named for a bachelor. The only difference between these versions is how much fluff there is, not what we know about the lake, or what the reader can gain beyond what can go in the main table (which is allowed to have info and linked sources beyond the data). Reywas92Talk01:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of lakes of Minnesota, where all of the reliably sourced information we have about it will be quite at home. Saying WP is a gazetteer doesn't mean every named object needs its own article as per GEOLAND. In this case, it's not even necessary to get into whether or not it's notable (which is not to say I think it's notable) because per WP:NOPAGE if we don't have much information about it and there's another article that can host it, that's where it should be even if it's notable. People are scraping every possible detail from various databases and primary sources. That's a sign that there shouldn't be a stand-alone article. Also, I'm adding my comment at the bottom of the thread because this is an AfD. If this section is separate from the AfD, move it to the talk page. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think at this point everyone is focusing in on the question of whether information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist per GEOLAND. Here is all the information that I think we know to exist about Bachelor Lake in Brown County, Minnesota:
Its name
Its location
Its area
Its elevation
Its legal status (protected)
Is there any more? I'm sticking with my merge !vote barring evidence that this list can significantly expand, because those five bits of data would be better-placed for our readers on the list of lakes rather than in a stand-alone page. – Levivich01:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Levivich - there is more that has been sourced, and more sources out there that are probably available from government libraries regarding its importance as an aquatic ecosystem. Here is another I just found: [4] - NPS Survey Results for Cottonwood River Watershed Lakes, and Bachelor Lake is one of 5 lakes listed as threatened. The study explains more. It was also one of four lakes involved in a reclamation project by the Minnesota DNR section of fisheries some years ago, and MEQB Minnesota Environmental Quality Board has monitored fish stocks. It satisfies V and N, and has important environmental significance. Also see the 3 different sources I added regarding the classification of the lake as NE - a protected lake. Granted, it is not some gigantic man-made recreational lake, but it doesn't need to be for inclusion per Geo feature. It is an aquatic ecosystem in a watershed, and it is significant enough to be protected. [5], [6]. AtsmeTalk📧02:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, satisfies V, yes, but I don't see N. Assuming arguendo the survey is a GNG source, it supports the notability of Cottonwood River, but not Bachelor Lake–not based on showing it on a map and listing it on one table, out of a 123-page report. Aside from GNG, as far as GEOLAND, I'm persuaded that if all the information can be listed in a row on the table, then it's not "information beyond statistics and coordinates" – that its status is "threatened" (which I think is literally the single fact that the NPS report can be used for) might add a #6 to my list above, but it's still in my eyes a "statistic". Agree to disagree on this one? PS. Did you hear about the wife who finally got fed up with her husband and told him to go jump in a lake? Guess which lake he picked. That's why there are so many lakes named "Bachelor Lake". :-D – Levivich06:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Technical relist because Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 8 decided to undo the previous non-admin closure. This discussion can be immediately reclosed and does not need to run for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having looked at the matter in detail, here's my own view. Deletion is not appropriate as this is a named natural feature per WP:GEOLAND and we have more information than general statistics – details of its naming, its geology, its water quality, its protected status and so on. The alternate view that the topic should be merged into list of lakes of Minnesota does not seem sensible for a number of reasons:
Minnesota has over 11,000 lakes and so the list is correspondingly large and unwieldy. It is especially difficult to navigate and read in the mobile view or using the app; I've tried. But most of our readers use that mode to access Wikipedia. And now we increasingly have people using smart speakers or voice assistants and huge lists are quite impractical for those.
The page in question already has about as many references as the entire list. But lists are increasingly expected to have sources for each entry, especially if the entries are not supported by separate pages. Putting the sources, citations and ancillary details into footnotes will be impractical for a list of this size – the foot is too far from the head because the body is so long.
In due course, we can expect to add an image of the place. Again, this will work better on a separate page, where it can be displayed at a good size, rather then being one amongst thousands of thumbnails.
The list is formatted as a table but this is a Procrustean bed – forcing all the entries into a uniform format. This encourages improper synthesis and OR – extrapolating tenous references to try to fill the cells. And it forces interesting and idiosyncratic details to be suppressed when they do not conform. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its readers expect articles not spreadsheets. Wikidata is the place for large volumes of structured data and so we should leave that aspect to them.
The information currently exists in article format and there are several editors interested in polishing this. Changing the format would be additional work for no benefit. If it works, don't fix it.
Keep Sneaking in while I can before this gets closed again. A named natural feature with more information than just statistical listings, easily passes WP:GEOLAND thanks to the WP:HEY efforts. SportingFlyerT·C12:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Jesus Christ, how can anyone think Andrew Davidson closing this AFD as "keep" was appropriate or think HEY applies in a case where the AFD is currently 10 times the length of the article, of which apparently around half the !votes are "keep" but none of them have managed to expand the article beyond six sentences (the seventh sentence was textbook OR that I have now removed). The lake's being a "protected water" doesn't prove notability because the cited source lists a whole bunch of similarly classified lakes that it dubs "Unnamed", nor does being the tenth-largest lake in an area that has only 19 km² of water. All of the information that is currently in this article -- and apparently all that could or ever will, given the amount of enthusiasm among the "keep" !voters here -- would be more readable and useful if included in a sortable table. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:12, 9 January 2020 (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.