Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax Lake

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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Lake[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article states little more than that the place exists and may not meet the notability criteria for geographic locations Finball30 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Finball30 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Finball30 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lakes in general do not meet any standard requiring coverage, or allowing coverage in a separate article, besides wp:GNG. There are probably more lakes than persons in Canada; it is a fact that there are more than 500,000 in the province of Quebec for example. Yes there exist databases giving coordinates, which can also be determined from maps; coordinates are insufficent. Yes there exists databases of named geographic features, which sometimes, as here assert a reason for a feature's name; that is also insufficient. It is not notable why some landowner near a lake chose to name it for his daughter, his family dog growing up, or where he came from. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. Also, there is no article existing in which it would make sense to mention this lake, at all. The article was not tagged for it, but in fact it is an wp:orphan; no mainspace articles at all link to it. It would be inappropriate to redirect or merge this to any article like Alberta, which is mentioned in the article, or to any other article. So "Delete" is appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account this natural lake is a permanent fixture on the map. Describing this lake fits Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer. WP:GEOLAND explains: "This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." – Gilliam (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The full passage from wp:GEOLAND is:

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.

Here, there does not exist info for an encyclopedic article. My interpretation right now of that passage is that it is pretty useless: it basically says if a lake has adequate sources for an article (i.e. if it meets wp:GNG), then it can be kept. We already have wp:GNG on the books. And, that last sentence is ridiculous. If there is no information available about a river island, then I highly doubt it should be mentioned in an article on the river. It is more likely so non-significant that it should not be mentioned in Wikipedia at all. Numerous editors do seem to think that Wikipedia is a gazetteer about more than it is. Wikipedia is a gazetteer about populated places, that is my understanding. It is not a gazetteer about lakes. Existence of a feature on maps is not sufficient... and we add nothing... a reader can see it on a map, and we have nothing to add. In fact we waste readers time by clogging up their Google search results, if we have an article pretending to provide more. --Doncram (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not standard practice that every lake on earth gets an automatic notability freebie just because it exists, regardless of the quality of its sourcing; the rule is that we keep articles about lakes if we can write and source something significant about them, and not if all we can do is write and source that the lake exists. This lake, however, is of the latter type rather than the former: the article says nothing significant besides stating that it exists, and its only sources are trivial and indiscriminate directories of geographic names rather than substantive coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer-thank you-RFD (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not for poorly sourced topics about which all we can say is "this exists, the end", it doesn't. We keep articles about lakes that can be substanced and sourced as significant, not just every lake that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and if there is a list or regional article that happens to mention this body of water (which List of lakes of Alberta does not), redirect the title there. BD2412 T 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has encyclopedicCatorce2016 (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC) value.[reply]
Delete per nom and Doncram's well written analysis. I tried to find any mention of this feature to try and expand the article but it just does not appear notable at all. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. Ifnord (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Doncram.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not passWP:GEOLAND Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. Unfortunately I can find no evidence of this lake except this. Lightburst (talk) 02:41, 16 November 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.