Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacArthurs 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 Moot. Was rewritten as a list article during the AfD. Deleting that would need a separate discussion. Sandstein 09:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MacArthurs Lake[edit]

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

Non-notable lake. The Cebuano and Swedish articles, according to Google Translate, consist solely of statistics. A plain search points to a MacArthur's Lake hotel in Kansas, and a search for "macarthurs lake nova scotia" turned up virtually nothing about the lake except that it exists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm usually a strong believer in digging up obscure sources to rescue these minor GEOLAND articles, but this isn't going to be one of those times. The lake in question is about 200m by 75m, if that, and – unsurprisingly – I'm unable to find reliable information other than raw statistical data. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete the revised article, as a nonstandard disambiguation page with no bluelinked topics. Don't get me wrong, I think the restructured article is both informative and nicely assembled, but I just don't see where it's permitted by our rules for disambiguation pages or stand-alone lists. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact five blue-linked topics: Lake McArthur, McArthur Lake, Northwest Territories, McArthur Lake, Ontario, Lac McArthur and McArthur Lake, Idaho. A disambiguation page is surely warranted. A sourced list is preferable in this case, based on the guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria: "... one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles... Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) ...". This list is short, complete, and could be useful for a reader looking for information on one of these lakes, whether or not it has its own article. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my alternate proposal below, i.e. to use a proper disambiguation page which I have drafted. Vote for this with "Merge" vote.--Doncram (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have turned it into a sort of disambiguation page. Maybe some of these lakes deserve an article of their own. I see no reason to delete: it is well-sourced and is not promotional or controversial. There is plenty of room in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per below. Was ~~Keep~~ the greatly revised list-article / disambiguation page, at this point. However it is not technically compliant with disambiguation page guidelines, as for example it includes sources which are obviously relevant for establishing notability but are not allowed at all in disambiguation pages. I don't think a list-article on "lakes with MacArthur in their name" is a good topic for Wikipedia; I think it should be modified to be a simple disambiguation page. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a valid structure. It would help someone looking for information about Lake McArthur, maybe not quite sure how it is spelled or exactly where it is. It gives useful information, even if some of the lakes are not particularly notable, and encourages browsing. Quite often an AfD outcome is "redirect to a list". This is the list. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't care particularly. I have created lots of list-articles, including really broad ones like List of Presbyterian churches. "Presbyterian churches" is a valid topic for a "standalone list" though, e.g. there will be some books/articles about architecture of Presbyterian churches. While there are no sources discussing the topic "lakes with McCarthur or MacCarthur in their name". No readers are looking to read about the topic. It can serve a disambiguating function only, and I think it should be stripped down to do just that, with no entertainment added. Again i am not going to strip it myself or engage in further disagreement even, but don't be surprised if/when others do. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for the official guidance. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It meets Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria as a "short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" that could be useful (e.g., for navigation). I agree that few readers will want information on the broad topic of "Lakes called McArthur", but it may help a reader find out about a specific lake. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That section "Common selection criteria" is about what items to include, if a list topic is already deemed acceptable. The guideline has less/different guidance than I thought it did about acceptable topics; it has been revised over the years. To repeat: the current list would be viewed as unacceptable by most editors. It would be perfectly fine for anyone to open an AFD about this current article. Seems silly to wait to let this close, covering the non-acceptability of the former article about one tiny lake, just to reopen an AFD about the current list. At this point, facing defiance about an inappropriate list being kept in mainspace, maybe I should be changing my "!vote" to "Delete". Or maybe I should just edit-war it into a disambiguation page. Ugh. --Doncram (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sourced list. Thanks to ~~Doncram~~ Aymatth2 for the work. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting my stupidity: Aymatth2. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be a disambiguation page like Long Lake, Round Lake, Abel Lake, all other "lake" examples in Category:Place name disambiguation pages. To try to be constructive and so that this AFD will settle the matter, I have started building a proper disambiguation page, drafting now at Talk:McArthur Lake/Alternate1. I request that the AFD be closed "Merge", i.e. for the material in the current list-article (which is not a valid standalone list) to be merged to this replacement disambiguation page and/or merged to corresponding pages like Hattah, Victoria. So, for example,

MacArthur's Lake (Victoria), a lake near Hattah, Victoria, Australia

is now a valid entry in a disambiguation page, as it includes a redlink and a supporting bluelink (the link to Hattah, an article which now contains the Macumber source and information from it). This complies with MOS:DABRL. The disambiguation page is not to include any sources or photos. It will just have (about 5) bluelinks to existing pages and also some redlinks where an item is supported as done for this one.

Similar work needs to be done to defend any other items in the disambiguation page. --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see a more realistic version of the proposed disambiguation page without redlinks to articles that will never be written. What would be lost? What would the benefits be? The immediate question is whether the page McArthur Lake should be deleted. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this version is a "clean" disambiguation page. User:Aymatth2 can add more redlink items to it if they would like to, if they believe that an article is needed and if they set it up properly per MOS:DABRL.

I am suggesting "Merge" to denote this proper disambiguation page choice. This would be copied to McArthur Lake page, so in fact the edit history of the list-article version will be preserved underneath.

Hey, don't blame me for making this complicated. I am trying to make it simple: "delete" or "keep" the list-article or "merge" meaning choose the disambiguation page which has merged elements from the list-article. --Doncram (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2018 (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.