Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur 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. Bravo to Milowent Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a small lake, whose only evident claim of notability under WP:GEOLAND is that it exists. Every lake on earth is not automatically presumed notable just because it exists, however -- unlike Papakomeka Lake, there's a lot more detail here, but it's all unreferenced and some of it has a serious credibility problem: does anybody genuinely believe, sans references, that a lake of just 1.5 square kilometres in size is actually divided into four organized districts with their own official names and flags? And after an obvious eyebrow-raiser like that, do we really believe, again without proper references, that the names of the lake islands are actually accurate, and do we care about cataloguing their litter situations at all? The lake exists, I won't deny that -- but after "it exists", literally everything else this article says about it is parked somewhere along the road that runs between unverifiability at best and outright bullshit at worst. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All lakes are notable, and a listing in a relevant govermnment database is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, all lakes are not automatically notable — GEOLAND is quite clear that there's a distinction between notable lakes and non-notable lakes, namely "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" — and inclusion in a government database, which includes every named lake that exists at all, is not enough to demonstrate notability if it's the only source that can be shown. And I note that you avoided addressing my point about how much of this article's content is problematic. Bearcat (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Per WP:GEOLAND: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." This is about all I could dig up of any substance. It can't even be included in List of lakes of Ontario because it doesn't reach the minimum area. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are larger lakes in Idaho (McArthur Lake Wildlife Management Area) and British Columbia/Alberta (List of lakes in Yoho National Park), so perhaps afterward a redirect should point to the former, with a hatnote to the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral: I don't know that every conceivable lake is notable, but this seems to be subject to enough commentary to be notable. not to mention the song:
McArthur Lake is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And never send this notable lake to AFD again
Oh no!

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the obviously facetious suggestion that Jimmy Webb wrote Macarthur Park about this lake (which he very clearly did not), where does "enough" reliable source commentary about the lake exist to make it notable? Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There will be another lake article for me

For I will write it
There will be other minor geographical point stubs for me
Someone will AfD it
I will drink the secondary sources while they are warm
And never let you catch me citing a link farm
And after all the articles of my life
After all the articles of my life
You'll still be the one
The extremely notable, though filled with unverifiable information,

McArthur Lake of northern Ontario.

::--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely notable on what basis? You can't just keep asserting that if you're not showing any evidence to support that it's true. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the content is verifiable apart from existence, and likely some of it is a WP:HOAX. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 29 April 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.