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 no consensus. The raw vote is 8-6 favoring deletion so there is no lopsided clear consensus. Of course NOTAVOTE applies in all cases but after reading this insanely long discussion twice, I don't see how any reasonable person can conclude there is a discernible consensus one way or another. Relisting this would serve no useful purpose IMO. This close is w/o prejudice to a future renomination, but I would encourage letting the dust settle a bit before sending it back to AfD. For now though, it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced article about a lake with no claim to passing our notability standard for lakes. Per WP:GEOLAND, lakes are accepted as notable provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist, and we do not just hand an automatic notability freebie to every lake in existence -- but this just states that the lake exists, and sources the fact to a map of the world rather than to any content that's actually about this lake, thus failing the "more than just statistics and coordinates" test. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a stub about a lake. Sourced. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, per GEOLAND, we do not automatically keep all stubs about all lakes. We keep articles about lakes for which we can write and source some genuine substance, and do not keep articles about lakes for which we can only write and source that the lake exists, the end. Sourcing the lake's existence to a map of the world is not how you make a lake notable enough for a Wikipedia article — you need sources which specifically write about the lake itself in words. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say is that some sort of stamp of approval have been given to Lake Juillet and Opiscoteo Lake (just two of quite a few others). Case closed about sources and words. This one trumps that threshold in comparison.BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected those to their municipality articles, unless you have substantive sources providing more detail than a name. No one looking at orphan pages is not a stamp of approval, but you can nominate those for AFD if you want to waste others' time. Reywas92Talk 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lake Juillet is a community (had population in 2011) on a lake of same name that is far bigger (more than 10 miles long)/more significant than Lac Terant. Its article was created by User:Ksanyi in 2013. Lac Opiscote0 is far far bigger and complex as a lake. It has islands and peninsulas which contain lacs bigger than Lac Terant. Its article was created by User:Dr. Blofeld in 2006. (Both of those articles have been redirected, but I am looking at history of the redirects.) Those two authors seem to have been working from some better list, of more important places, than whatever list BabbaQ is working from, it appears to me. Lac Terant seems to be far too small to think about mentioning in List of lakes in Quebec. --Doncram (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Size has no merit on notability.BabbaQ (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm saying it's not notable due to lack of coverage, but even a redirect is not warranted due to it failing the relevant list-article size-based inclusion criteria.----Pontificalibus 20:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- but the article needs to be expanded as it probably can be. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not every lake is expandable at all, because not every lake is the subject of any significant reliable source coverage at all. So lakes are not kept pending the possibility of future improvement that may not be possible; they are kept only if the article is already substanced and sourced well enough to clear GEOLAND in their existing form. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some information from Quebec's Commission de Toponymie, the provincial agency in charge of geographic names. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "some information" added? There was no information added explaining etymology of the lac's name, because the source has no information to give. --Doncram (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC) The toponymie source literally says that it has no information available about this lac. That is not useful information, and does not go towards notability! --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Commission de Toponymie is not a notability-making source; it just offers reconfirmation that the lake exists, and fails to support any substantive content of the type required by GEOLAND. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good addition of good source. And some expansion.BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence as one of Quebec's tens of thousands of lakes is not notability. If all we have is a name and location without substantive sources, it is very simply not notable. Reywas92Talk 19:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
POV does not trump guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND is our guideline that says natural features must have sourcing for further information to establish notability, unclear what makes you think I have a bias with respect to this lake. Reywas92Talk 21:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sources do nothing but establish the lake's existence and location, and does nothing to demonstrate notability. I have also been unable to locate any additional sources that go beyond this. Per WP:GEOLAND, natural features are notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", which does not appear to be the case with this lake. As an alternative, I would not be opposed if this were redirected to Lac-Walker, Quebec instead. Rorshacma (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From satellite view in Google (where the lake is unnamed) and Bing (where the lake is named), it is about half a mile long, running mostly north-south. It has a couple islands at least. Maybe there is some restriction on accuracy allowed for viewing in this area, because it comes up then shrinks away and I cannot zoom in again on it. Maybe that is due to military reasons or whatever, and I am not Donald Trump so I can't release a more detailed photo. Anyhow, it is much more substantial than a pond, say. I would be inclined to "Keep" and tag for development. --Doncram (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is outside, just to the west, of the boundary of the "projet de parc national du Lac Walker", which is a proposed National Park, which is not yet covered in Wikipedia, which is proceeding by "petits pas" (small steps) https://macotenord.com/des-petits-pas-vers-un-parc-national-au-lac-walker/. Can see that by comparison of Bing map vs. map of the projet,here. A bit more at here. For developing wikipedia, it would be better to start an article covering this park proposal, which could include a list of lacs which it contains, and any separate articles about any of its lacs could probably be redirected to there. Parc national au lac Walker, Parc National au Lac Walker, Parc National du Lac-Walker and Lake Walker National Park are currently redlinks. --Doncram (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The region of Lac-Walker, Quebec is far far far far far too big to think about mentioning this lac in the article. I am sure it is not within the top 1,000 lacs in the region! Maybe not in the top 10,000 lacs. So I do not agree with User:Rorshacma's suggestion to redirect as an alternative to deletion; in general IMHO a redirect should only go to a place which provides some info about the topic. Currently there is no info about this topic in its article, besides its location and name. Which is conveyed by Bing maps already, and we add no value to that, so I am becoming skeptical about this article.
I notice that there are a good number of lacs within the proposed national park which are bigger than Lac Terant and do not have Wikipedia articles, e.g. Lac Larry. If User:BabbaQ (creator of the Lac Terant article) is interested in lacs IMHO they should be working from "more important" down, not just working through a random list of all lacs that exist in the world. And even the "more important" ones don't have to have separate articles, it is more appropriate to cover them in list-articles or articles about national parks or whatever that include lists of lacs. --Doncram (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because this really seems minor, and is less important than many larger lacs even in the same region. And seems not worth mentioning in any list-article or any other article in Wikipedia, ever! (Unless someone is that interested in the huge "reserve faunique" area that it is located in map, to create an article about that and mention it within a list of lacs in that article, perhaps, though such a list of lacs maybe should not even include it. But even if it did then this lac should not get a separate article; there is nothing at all to say about it further than its location, better covered in the list of lacs. If this continues to exist it would only ever have non-mainspace links, e.g. from this AFD. --Doncram (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC) 09:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be worth mentioning the lake at Lac-Walker, Quebec if this isn't kept.. Or a List of lakes of Lac-Walker, Quebec if it's not deemed notable enough to mention in that as it's 18,000 + km2. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not appropriate to mention this speck, within an article about that vast area, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Wow, thanks owed to Aymatth2 for creating new Parc National du Lac-Walker about the proposed Parc and new Port-Cartier-Sept-Îles Wildlife Reserve (reserve faunique, much larger area). The Parc National one appropriately includes a list of lakes that it contains, which Aymatth2 chose from those lakes large enough to be visible and named in the map of the Parc. Lac Terant is within the reserve faunique, but is nowhere near big enough to be mentioned among any list of lakes in the reserve; only those shown in the map of the reserve might deserve mention in the article about the reserve.
I think a new standard for notability of lakes is emerging: A lake is NOT notable, should not be covered in a separate Wikipedia article, if it is not at least mentioned in an established/valid Wikipedia article that has reasonable standards. I.e., the mention must establish the significance of the lake in a reasonable context, e.g. as one of the 20 or so substantial lakes included in a national park, where all those are mentioned in the national park article. But it is not reasonable to name unsubstantial lakes in the national park article. There needs to be a reasonable standard for mention. And, even if a lake is named in a legitimate article containing a list of lakes, that does not mean an article is justified yet. Only if there is substantial, valid sourced information that does not fit comfortably in a table row or otherwise in the legitimate list of lakes article. Note, if only location (latitute and longitude) and statistics like area or length or elevation are available, then it is BETTER to cover a substantial lake only in the corresponding list-article, where a corresponding ((GeoGroup)) can display the locations of all the lakes, and where RELATIVE INFORMATION is created/provided. For example, where the reader can see that the subject lake is located to the southeast of the center of all the lakes, or whatever, and that it is mid-sized relative to other lakes in the region. A separate article just giving location and size would convey LESS INFORMATION than having the lake covered in a table row in a list-article. It is reasonable to redirect the lake's name to the spot in the list-article where it is covered, using an ((anchor)) in free text or using an "id=" field in a table.
Here, about this Lac Terant, it is not reasonable for it to be mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." The WP:GEOLAND guideline says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." The article as it is fails the GEOLAND test since it gives no more than the coordinates and the administrative region, which can be derived from them. Nothing would be lost if it were redirected to an anchor in list of lakes that gave the same information:
There would be a loss if the title were wiped out with no redirect to such a list, since Wikipedia would lose some function as a gazetteer. See also this discussion. If more information is known to exist, for example about the terrain, geology, drainage, climate, water quality, fish etc., the article should presumably be kept and expanded. The bot-generated w:sv:Lac Terant indicates that more information is available. If we do not want to go down that route, it should at least redirect to a table entry. But it is not at all obvious how the table would be created and what its scope would be. There are 500,000 lakes in Quebec, many of them not in any protected area but just in a huge municipality like Jamésie. By river basin maybe? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By river basin sounds promising, i.e. it might possibly be reasonable for Lac Terant to be named as one of the contributing water sources in the article on whatever is the big lake to its left on maps, into which it drains, or to the larger river system that drains that lake. (Again that doesn't mean we need a separate article on Lac Terant; the term should probably redirect to the river system article which mentions it.) Hmm, neither Google maps nor Bing maps contain elevation/altitude lines, which do appear on some map that I was looking at earlier, which shows the descent of a stream/river out of the lake going down that way.
By the way, for lake aficionados here, can you believe, on Google or Bing maps, the astonishing "annular lake" somewhat to the north of Lac Terant? Wow, that looks very weird. Yes there is a Wikipedia article explaining it. I leave it to you to figure it out.
But I am editing again to point out that WIKIPEDIA CANNOT BE A GAZETTEER OF LAKES! The article on the province of Quebec cites this source in asserting that Quebec has more than 500,000 lacs. The province has about 8 million people. Leave out 4 million in the metropolitan area of Montreal, and 800,000 in the Quebec City area, and 156,000 in Trois-Rivieres (okay i confess i am not really sure if that is not double-counting one way or the other), and you are down to about 3 million people in the province outside of the 3 biggest cities. WE CANNOT HAVE AN ARTICLE ABOUT EVERY RURAL PERSON IN THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC! Pulleez, i do not want to know about most of them! (Dégoûtant, la plupart d'entre eux mangent probablement de la poutine!) De même, je ne veux pas en savoir plus de 500,000 lacs dans la province! Really, imagine that. We do not want an article about each hunter/farmer/monk/nun in the world, and the number of lacs is comparable! Certains sont probablement laids. Okay, Quebec is lake-heavy, having 12 percent of its surface area being fresh water, but still. --Doncram (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can see contour lines in Google. Click on 50°28′35″N67°44′55″W / 50.47639°N 67.74861°W / 50.47639; -67.74861, scroll down to "Google maps" and click "Terrain. One difference between lakes and people is that lakes stay around a lot longer. All that poutine has to take its toll. I imagine the 500,000 figure includes a lot of pond-sized "lakes". Probably there are less than 50,000 where you could not shoot an arrow and hit a tree on the other side. There is plenty of space in Wikipedia to hold them all. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, well that is not how Wikipedia works, it is not just about space being available, it is about sources providing actual coverage being available, and it is about potential reader interest. We are trying to write an encyclopedia covering notable topics, as opposed to being a wp:DIRECTORY enumerating all the examples of everything no matter how non-encyclopedic. --Doncram (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed as Aymatth2 says, Wikipedia:Five pillars sates "our encyclopedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." It does NOT say "our encyclopedia is a gazetteer". Encyclopedia articles discuss notable subjects in detail, and a list of 50,000 lakes in Quebec where you could not shoot an arrow across is not a notable subject, whatever article(s) the list entries are shoe-horned into ----Pontificalibus 06:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia can contain lists, which are useful to readers. An article on a railway line may list the stations on the line, including stations that will never have stand-alone articles. An article on a protected area may list the lakes, rivers and peaks, giving information like coordinates, area, length and elevation, including items that may never have stand-alone articles. A redirect page pointing to an entry in a list like this may be useful to readers. There is no maintenance issue: natural features do not move around a lot. If someone wants to create a list of lakes with basic information about those lakes, they are adding value. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several editors here participated in some past AFDs related to creation of articles about "McArthur Lake" or similar. This discussion reminded me of that past brouhaha, in which I think notability of lakes was not well-understood, and things were confused by active editing changing articles between covering a single lake or being a disambiguation page or whatever. To clean up from that, please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes named McArthur, just opened. --Doncram (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why ask for input of another article AfD here. BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still stand by my comment and !vote of Keep based on guidelines. This article has no part in other List of.. articles. And shouldn’t be part of other AfD processess like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes named McArthur. I see no Delete !vote mentioning any guideline or strong rationale for deletion except POV. Guidelines always trumps POV.BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand what WP:POV is. Simply having an opinion is not forbidden POV, but you're dead wrong: the guideline we're mentioning is WP:GEOLAND, and this simply does not meet that standard! Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most lakes of this size are notable. As shown by the Swedish version of the article, more can be added on the terrain, climate, local population etc. The lake has almost certainly been visited by geologists, who will have discussed the rocks. It must be named after someone... The article as it stands gives some information, and there is good reason to expect that it will be expanded to give more. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the content or links in the Swedish page – which was autogenerated by a bot! – is about the lake itself at all, it's simple generalizations from NASA data that apply to the entirety of Sept-Rivières Regional County Municipality or what have you. Do you really think geologists have written details about all 500,000 lakes in Quebec? That's it's not the same as all of the other thousand lakes within ten miles of it? You can't just hand-wave assumptions about what is known and that it'll be expanded, an article needs actual sources discussing the subject to establish notability. Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to see a lake as just a three-dimensional volume of water with a flat upper surface and an irregular lower surface. There are bumps in the lower surface where rocks intrude, and holes where the fish fit in, but the rocks and fish are not part of the lake itself. The lake changes temperature from time to time, but the changes are a factor of the local climate, not specific to the lake. It is possible to see a lake this way, but that is not what our readers want. When does it freeze and when does it thaw? What kinds of fish can they catch, and how many? What is the scenery like? Do the rocks hold gold or uranium? Where does the name come from? Is there a campsite? Can you reach other lakes? Yes, a lot of this information will be common to other lakes in the region, but what matters is whether it is accurate and meets our readers' needs. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What also matters is our damn notability guidelines and this doesn't pass them! Google Maps indicates this lake is 50 miles from the nearest road, with hundreds of other lakes within that radius. We're not a travel guide for fishermen but no, it doesn't look like there's a campsite there! All we have is a name and coordinates, which is not adequate to keep as a separate article. Unclear where "Most lakes of this size are notable" nonsense comes from; this lake is a mere 600m x 200m and that is not the basis of GEOLAND or standing precedent.
Keep. Ithink geologists and local people do have recorded information about almost any lake, and it is only necessary to find it. The only question is to what extent these should be comination articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So find it! You're usually good with the guidelines but you can't say all of the half million lakes in Quebec are automatically individually notable because you think such information is recorded about each one. You're allowed to say Merge but until this supposed local lore shows up, we've got an interminable List of lakes in Quebec. Reywas92Talk 08:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that there are any local people, because the nearest settlements and roads are so many lakes away. If any geologists have written about it in detail then such writing it shouldn't be hard to find via the usual routes for academic searches.----Pontificalibus 20:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The location and coordinates of the lake is given, but no additional information related to notability is provided. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikoo.Amini: The question is not what the article is now, but what it could become. It should be deleted if it is highly unlikely that reliable sources have discussed it in any detail, and that anything more than coordinates and basic statistics will ever be available. But if there is potential it should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To keep the article would benefit the project. And as basically no guideline towards deletion has been presented by any of the Delete !votes while Keep !votes has been strong it should be kept in my opinion. And possibly revisited in six months if ever. WP:GNG being met trumps still.BabbaQ (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you continuing to lie? Yes, a clear guideline has been presented, and no, WP:GNG is NOT met! A database entry with merely a name and coordinates is not "significant coverage"; it is a single source, not "sources"; and it would only create a presumption, not guarantee, of notability, since having one-line articles on the millions of tiny lakes in existence sourced only to a database is clearly "an indiscriminate collection of information." Go away. Reywas92Talk 19:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion arguments may be summarized as 1) there are far too many lakes to fit into Wikipedia 2) there is no evidence that this lake is notable 3) all we know about it is its coordinates. The first point can be dismissed. There are fewer lakes of this size than species of life, they rarely change, space is not a concern and lake articles do not get in the way of readers looking for other information. To the second point, the Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) says "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." A lake article does not have to meet the General notability guideline; we just have to know there is enough information for a meaningful article.
The third point is wrong. We know the lake is in hilly country at about 660 metres (2,170 ft) and drains to the west into the north arm of Lake Sainte-Anne in the lower Toulnustouc River basin. It is in the boreal climate zone and is mainly surrounded by coniferous forest. We know the average monthly temperatures and rainfall, and we know about the geology of the area in detail. It has been supplying newsprint to the Chicago Tribune since the 1920s. It has been logged, replanted and logged again. The rivers have been dammed, mines opened, railways built, environmental impacts studied.This is far from untouched wilderness. There are bound to be offline sources that give more information.
I can pump up the article a bit if the decision is to keep it. I question what benefit there would be to deleting it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What information about the lake beyond statistics is known to exist? Information about the region, climate, surrounding forest etc is not information about the lake. It’s all very well asserting that written sources exist, but that’s not the same as knowing they exist. I assert that they may not exist, it’s perfectly conceivable that all sorts of human activity has taken place around the lake without anyone writing about the lake and publishing it.—--Pontificalibus 16:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We know the lake is made of water. Our readers can probably guess that. I admit that Information about streams that flow into and out of it, rain and snow that falls into it, the temperature of the air above it, the rocks that lie under it, trees that lean over it, fish that swim in it and so on is not about the lake itself, which is made of water. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have located publications such as "The Microclimate of Lac Terant: a Multi-year Analysis" or a "Fish Species in Ontario Lakes: The Peculiar Case of Lac Terant" then we can add that information. Otherwise you are just making presumptions that could easily be erroneous. It would be an analysis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources, in violation of WP:SYNTH. Of course we can talk about the characteristics of the region etc in the article, but we shouldn't imply that such information is actually verified information about the lake in an attempt to seem like we are satisfying GEOLAND. --Pontificalibus 06:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)--06:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very suspicious of a report named "Fish Species in Ontario Lakes: The Peculiar Case of Lac Terant", regardless of who published it. But if a map made by a government agency shows that as of 2017 the lake was in an area of commercial forestry with trees over 30 years of age, it would not be WP:SYNTH to say that a map made by a government agency shows that as of 2017 the lake was in an area of commercial forestry with trees over 30 years of age. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So by "pump up the article a bit" you mean make a WP:REFBOMB? What benefit is an article where no content is about the subject itself? Of the facts you just stated, which came from sources talking about Lac Terant, and which are generic references to eastern Quebec? The fact that you can get weather data for anywhere in the world does not mean any geographic point in the world can get its own article. Jumbo Lake is an embarrassing textbook example of a REFBOMB: the database entry with coordinates at Commission de toponymie de Quebec is literally the only one that's about it! Yet for some reason you randomly add the etymology of nearby rivers because we don't even have an origin for the lake itself. Reywas92Talk 18:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: you may be getting confused between the primary purpose of citations, which is to show where the information in an article comes from, and the secondary use which is to show that the subject is notable. Even quite experienced editors get mixed up over this. All statements should be backed up by citations, whether or not they help establish notability. With articles on geographical features, notability is based on information provided or known to be available, not on citations. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the relevant guideline, WP:GEOLAND "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Some participants e.g. Aymatth2 contend that this means a feature is notable if we have any information about its surroundings. This would mean that every such feature is notable, because we always know what continent that mountain is on, what the average temperature of that lake is measured by satellite etc.. However the purpose of this guideline was clearly not to make every feature notable, otherwise it would simply state that. The guideline gives an example of a river island with no information available except name and location and states that it should probably be described in an article on the river. Of course in such a case we may know lots about the river, but that doesn’t mean we should use that information to try and justify a separate article about the island, because again, that would mean every such feature would have a separate article and that’s not what the guideline intends.
It seems quite clear that unless we can find a source giving information specifically about the lake, then a separate article is not supported by the guideline, just like the river island given as the example. Assuming that such sources are out there somewhere is not sufficient, otherwise every such feature could be argued as being notable - the guideline states that information must be known to exist.----Pontificalibus 06:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a separate article is justified here. Per WP:GNG as reliable third party sources. Per sourcing overall. Per above average obvious interest per this AfD of an supposed ”irrelevant river”. GEOLAND could apply, but in favour of keeping the article. Sources are decent enough for inclusion. My Keep !vote stands.BabbaQ (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Zero of the sources in the article are GNG-eligible media coverage — it's still referenced entirely to WP:ROUTINE directories and maps, not to any evidence of anybody writing prose content about the lake. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only can I not find any sources about this lake, I can't even find any document depositories where sources of this lake are likely to be. The unincorporated municipality that encompasses it does not seem to have a public library. Until some poor schlub gets murdered and dumped in this lake, I don't think an article about it is justified. I am not sure that this can even go in a list. Rockphed (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lake would have been discussed in the pre-internet age when Lake Sainte-Anne was first damned by Hydro-Québec. The forestry people have records. We know a lot about the location, climate and surroundings. But I would be opposed to disposing of a body in the lake to save the article from deletion. That seems too extreme. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GEOLAND says lakes may be notable provided there is enough information beyond statistics and coordinates - the article references merely establish that the lake exists, not that it is notable - Epinoia (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a sourced stub about a lake. Why is there a problem? If we keep broading the the defintion of notable , we will end up with an encyclopedia about nothing.- Ret.Prof (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that this debate is moving toward "keep", or at least "no consensus", despite the fact the article is so far just a stub, while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumbo Lake, on a more substantial article, is moving towards "delete". I would prefer to keep both of them, or failing that to redirect to broader articles holding what information we have about them. But it seems that the AfD process is working randomly here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:13, 14 September 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.