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.
Fails GNG/GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage. The only non-map/database source is a passing mention in a hiking guide. –dlthewave☎ 05:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GEOLAND, it is a named geographical feature with sources. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 05:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd and I have not yet had time to make further improvements.--MONGO (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – GEOLAND, with plenty of room to expand. Atsme💬📧 10:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC) ADDING: this AfD is one of about 10+/- others by this same nom and same author (who has multiple FAs under their belt).[reply]
Note to closer: the following lakes are in this group with same keep reasons plus NEXIST applies to the following: updated Atsme💬📧 15:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nom could've started a discussion with the article creator FIRST, and maybe tagged the articles with a more sources needed tag. Atsme💬📧 17:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes our guidlines as a named natural feature. Lightburst (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says 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.. Here we have an article with 2 lines and 3 sources after 10 years. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park except a quick mention regarding fishing. That article is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I will repeat once more that the part of the guideline you quoted does not apply to nationally protected areas and named natural features. I have already explained this at the other 10 or so articles in this mass deletion attempt. The NGEO page banner clearly states (my bold underline): Places with nationally protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. We also have WP:NEXIST, which squelches your source argument; proper sources have been cited and others exist. WP:SNG clearly states Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. I'll go another step further with WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Your comment about this article's 3 lines is irrelevant at AfD because (a) the current material is more than simple statistics, and (b) being a stub does not effect notability. HTH Atsme💬📧 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I will repeat once more that no one here disputes that Grand Teton National Park is notable, so no need to quote that part about protected areas, so the relevant text is named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. but the page goes on to give guidelines for what constitutes verifiable information, and so, on that same page, in the exposition - rather than the nutshell guide - gives us WP:GEOLAND which I quoted. What does the nutshell mean by "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"? We read that The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. And again, WP:NEXIST is not relevant. I have not said that the sources must be in the article. I have said I have found no evidence that sufficient sources exist anywhere for a standalone article on Bearpaw Lake. AfD is a discussion, and my view is that there is a lot of sense in having some kind of article that brings all the lakes or sites/sights or whatever together into a single encyclopaedic article. I just think there are better ways to do this then to make all these stubs all over the place that no one touches for years, no one reads and no one benefits from. It is clear you care about the fact that this information is on Wikipedia somewhere but wouldn't it be better in some more encylopaedic article? Bearpaw lake does not meet the notability guidelines, and this is just dancing around the subject without providing any actual evidence to the contrary.
I have said my piece and will leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article has been expanded as shown here.--MONGO (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Two new sources are added and as I said, I would reconsider if new evidence is found, but they are trail guides - how to get to the lake. The NPS guide tells us nothing about the lake, just directions. The other one is a reference to "The Rough Guide", which may be similar but I am not able to preview the book. Does it actually tell us any information about the lake? What does it tell us about the significance? If such sources exist (they don't even have to be in the article) then I would change my view to keep - but a trail guide on how to reach a lake without telling us anything about it does not indicate significance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, your comments have no relevance to the notability of this article – see WP:CONTN, and WP:NEXIST. Please take your content suggestions to the article's TP. Atsme💬📧 17:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy's comments are certainly relevant here and they raise a good point about the depth of the sources. These guidebooks typically mention features like this in passing, with a description of its location and perhaps a factoid or two. It's perfectly valid for an editor to question or reject the assertion that this satisfies SIGCOV, and we can't really fall back on NEXIST since there isn't really any substantial content that could be added from the source. –dlthewave☎ 17:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree because (a) SIGCOV is not applicable for geographic features; SNG applies as stated in GNG, and (b) NEXIST is unequivocally applicable. A Google search is not likely to bring up the books, magazines, and/or other articles that may very well be available in public libraries, USGS, the National Park Service, NOAA (since these are natural glacial lakes), Wyoming Game & Fish Dept. and various other State resource agencies, private conservation/environmental NPOs, the USF&WS, etc. WP:ATD is where one can find the proper procedure that applies in this case in lieu of mass prodding and nomming all these articles independently at AfD: If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. You neither attempted to first discuss anything with article creator MONGO, nor did you start a discussion at the respective article TPs. You took it upon yourself to prod and nom 10 individual articles, and even worse, you were planning to add, what – 8 more if an administrator had not stepped in? Your premise for this AfD is that it "Fails GNG/GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage." And that is the problem – you are applying SIGCOV which is not applicable per the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. There is enough verifiable content in all of these articles, and it is verifiably sourced. If you don't like the sources, take it to RSN, not AfD, or start an RfC on the article TP. CONTN also applies here, and further refutes your argument as does our deletion policy because (a) none of the articles you nommed and/or prodded violate a single WP policy, (b) all of them pass WP:V policy, (c) they are cited to sources that provide verifiable content, although more could be added but that's a content issue, and why I suggested going to the article TP, not AfD. The 2 arguments to delete have no standing. Atsme💬📧 03:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Other sources from newspapers.com. It not only passes WP:GEOLAND but even WP:GNG:
Nice findings. If nothng else, the best thing about this is these stubs can all be enhanced and after I complete some work on an FA that is being reviewed I shall endeavour to spend most of my wiki time doing so.--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, one of them is about a different lake. Sorry MONGO. Ovinus (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still, contunued efforts by folks like yourself demonstrate that there are still more details that enhance the notability of these features.--MONGO (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yeah. Hopefully the issue of geostub mass creation (which I think this article came from?) will be discussed at the ArbCom-mandated RfC. My current thinking is that they should only be mass created (say, idk, >=1/day) when there is a strong community consensus to do so, given a few samples. That would avoid future problems like this one. While I'm sympathetic to the nom's concerns over encyclopedic quality, I don't think these particular geostubs are the slag of our foundry. The Carlossuarez stubs, on the other hand, must be extirpated. Anyway, that's immaterial to this discussion. Ovinus (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a mass creation effort at all nor using any automated script to produce them. I'll be working to get more geo-stubs on better footing.--MONGO (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2022 (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.