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.
Added updates re outcomes & single challenge Atsme💬📧 16:44, 4 September 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 before I even have had some time to make updates to it.--MONGO (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have added further details which meet GEOLAND I believe.--MONGO (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no question that it passes N, but thanks for adding more info, MONGO. An admin respectfully requested that the nom stop prodding and nomming. We are being inundated apparently based on the nom's misinterpretation of WP:NEXIST and WP:GEO which clearly apply here. Atsme💬📧 13:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge (see comment below)) per WP:GEOLAND, which says in the relevant section: 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 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.. 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 and that 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. To be clear, those who say it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND and that the nom. should have considered WP:BEFORE have not provided any sources that demonstrate that notability. The fact it sits in a national park does not confer automatic notability. Per WP:GEOLAND there is insufficient verifiable information for an encylopaedic article and this stub should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: Consider that you may be misinterpreting the GEO guideline. It is understandable because our guidelines, policies and essays are all confoundingly contradictory at times. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND, which most editors hold to override the WP:GNG. Consider WP:GAZETTEER; this article is appropriate for a encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I also find a few mentions, which perhaps don't add up to GNG but may be used for further sourcing:
There are a couple smaller entries. Again, borderline on WP:GNG, but there are no verifiability concerns here. I entreat the nom to withdraw their other nominations, as it's a little tiring for me to conduct six more searches. Ovinus (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an article such as List of lakes in Grand Teton National Park existed, would anyone here be opposed to merging this article into it? I am neutral. Ovinus (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: I am ok with the idea of the list in addition to keeping the individual lake articles. That way if there is ever a future new consensus we have a target for redirect. Brilliant Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ONly objection I have is the vast majority of lists consist of less information than these stubs had to begin with and are worse as far as providing anything of knowledge.--MONGO (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend waiting until I get the research back from Stan Klassen Research Center - Jackson Hole Historical Society & Museum (jacksonholehistory.org), and have had time to research other avenues, such as Wyoming Game & Fish Dept., USF&WS, USGS, NOAA, and NPS. Atsme💬📧 02:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out we have a list article already: List of lakes of Wyoming although none of these lakes are on it. However my suggestion for how these be reworked was really about more than just a list article, where existence is noted but little more can be said. I would think there was enough significant coverage for an article "Lakes of Grand Teton National Park", which would be more than a list as you could have sections on geology or hydrology, or a broader discussion about them as a group. Information could be expanded out from this section [2] as well as the following glaciation section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added – a bit more historic information. WP:NEXISTAtsme💬📧 12:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks to the closer for relisting this for fuller discussion and to User:Atsme for finding and adding the newspaper article about the naming of Dudley lake. On the question of notability, and particularly whether this meets WP:GEOLAND, I do not believe that a reference about how the lake was named demonstrated WP:SIGCOV. All lakes got named somehow but that in itself does not demonstrate, per WP:GEOLAND that there is sufficient information for an encylopaedic article. There is information, yes, but GEOLAND specifically speaks of enough information to write an encyclopaedic artice. Merely stating WP:NEXIST is not relevant as I have repeatedly stated that sources don't have to be in an article to show that it is notable, but evidence that sufficient information exists somewhere is required to demonstrate this.
Yet I have a quandry here, because in general I am very loathe to delete any actual useful (and reliable/true) information from Wikipedia, and the information about the naming is itself useful/of some interest. I would normally suggest merge at this point, but the problem has been that we do not have a suitable merge target. The naming of the lake would be clearly relevant to an article about Dudley Hayden, but as the red link here shows, there is not enough information to show WP:SIGCOV for an article about him, either. So we can't merge it there.
The other target I have repeatedly suggested is an article that goes into detail about the lakes of this national park. Not just a list but an article. The lakes are significant as a group, because they are largely alpine glacial lakes in pristine wilderness with some interesting features. The geology and prehistory are interesting to me at least, and they are interesting for leisure and recreational reasons. I have said I think such an article would be better than all these tiny stubs, but we don't have one. Well, we didn't. I have just spent some time creating Lakes of Grand Teton National Park. My view is that this information could be preserved in that article in a section that looks at the history of the named lakes.
However, I have not pre-empted this discussion by copying in that information (or rather, if you edit it, you will see I did copy it in in a comment just to give an idea where I would put it, although I am thinking some of the named lakes can be taken together under a single heading). Lots to think about there, and indeed, maybe you will throw up your hands in horror and say that we can't possibly do it that way, in which case the Lakes article can develop along the lines of geology, history and glaciology and all the stuff that makes for an article that I would find really interesting! However, I do hope that we can move towards a consensus that this article is, in fact, a good merge target for the small amount of information we have on various of these lakes. It can also be a parent article to any of the lake articles that are significant (noting that Grand Teton National Park does not contain links to all of these).
Cannot understand what is gained by copy pasting 18K bits of text from an FA to a daughter article.--MONGO (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a copy and paste. There is new information in there, and soon will be more. The reason for expanding information out into new articles is to allow the articles to be expanded in a manner that would be undue in the parent. But by all means nominate it at AfD if you think it should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should probably move this discussion to the article TP, and let this AfD close because this article clearly passes GEOLAND. Anything beyond reasons delete or keep per our PAGs should go to the article TP, and let article creators provide input, if they so choose. Let's not make it overly difficult for the closer to find what they need in order to do a proper close of this AfD. Atsme💬📧 17:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like you I thought that anything beyond delete or keep should be discussed on article talk pages (and thought I had been told that by a closer in the past) but I was recently informed by an AfD closer that merge is indeed a valid AfD outcome, and that is confirmed by WP:AFDFORMAT. So the question of merge is pertinent here. Article creators are here too, so I would be grateful if you would consider my arguments above. You do repeat your view that this passes GEOLAND, but I do not see an answer as to how it passes the text of 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.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Applied sources are more than sufficent by quantity and quality to meet both GNG and GEOLAND. Arguments to delete or merge are as unpersuasive as process-based discussion. This isn't close. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm iffy on if it meets WP:GNG, but WP:GEOLAND says 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 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. In this example, while the article is still stubby, it has decent, verifiable info on its history and topography for a partially encyclopedic article (P.S. while it seems to be a stub, somehow Rater says it's 52% a start class article). VickKiang (talk) 22:21, 5 September 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.