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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake, Ontario

[edit]

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

McArthur Lake, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New article about the same lake previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake. While this avoids all of the eyebrow-raising claims about district flags and island litter that pushed the first version toward hoax territory, what it doesn't actually do is reliably source any new indication that the lake is notable — the references here are entirely directory entries, maps and a source about the geology of the township that the lake is located in, which fails to even mention this lake at all in the process. So it's different enough to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it still fails to demonstrate any reason why the lake would warrant a Wikipedia article about it. As always, every lake is not automatically notable enough for inclusion here just because its existence is verifiable on maps — a lake needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about the lake to qualify for an article, but there's still no evidence being shown that this one has any of that. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the size of a lake, nor its accessibility or lack thereof by road, is an inclusion criterion for lakes in and of itself. Maps and directories are not notability-conferring sources, either, because they do not represent media coverage about the lake — and even your Google Search results bring up namechecks of the lake's existence in sources that are not about the lake, which still do not assist in establishing the lake's notability. The notability of a lake is established by historical, political or social context, not just by being technically able to reference the geological composition of its bedrock. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the guidelines that says only media coverage confers notability, or that historical, political or social context is needed. Any source that may reasonably be considered reliable and independent contributes to notability, and any useful type of information is appropriate. In this case, there is obviously considerable interest in the mineral potential of the lake. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The base notability criterion, the one from which all other more specific criteria derive and the one that even a topic that technically meets an SNG still has to also satisfy, is that it is the subject of reliable source coverage about it. And no, not just "any source that may reasonably be considered reliable and independent" contributes to notability — maps do not, indiscriminate government directories of every geographic location that exists within that government's terrain of jurisdiction do not, and on and so forth. A source has to represent editorial content about the topic, in magazines or newspapers or books or radio/TV broadcasts, to contribute toward notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marpesia zerynthia
The editorial content rule is a new one to me. That means that just about every article on a butterfly should be deleted: no editorial content in the media, no historical, political or social context, just reference books and scientific papers. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Butterfly species get written about by reliable sources: reference books, for example, are still books, and botany literature is a thing too. And "historical, political or social context" is an issue with regard to geographic topics, not flora and fauna. The base rule for geographic topics is that we have to be able to reference more about the topic than just "it exists and here are some of its statistics" — every lake that exists at all is referenceable to maps and government directories of geographic names, but every lake that exists at all is not automatically notable just for existing, which is why lakes have to meet a higher standard of significance than just being verifiable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is very interesting. I always thought that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Where is the special rule for geographical topics stated? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not in conflict with what I said — what I said is a clarification and expansion of what "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" means. Maps and government geoname databases, for starters, do not represent significant coverage about the lake, glancing namechecks of the lake's existence in coverage about other things (i.e. the Google Books search results you showed) do not represent significant coverage about the lake, and the only other source you've added here completely fails to even mention the lake at all and thus does not represent significant coverage about the lake. So you haven't shown any evidence that McArthur Lake passes the "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" at all — all you've shown is nominal verification that the lake exists, when WP:GEOLAND is quite clear that a lake requires more than just nominal verication that it exists before it becomes an appropriate article topic. And since the geological stuff is referenced to the source that fails to mention the lake at all, you're also synthesizeing sources about other topics to create new original research about the lake itself — which is also against Wikipedia's rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a couple more sources. Government of course so they were just doing their job and the data came from volunteers, who say water quality is good, although no journalists checked the results. I stayed clear of the fishing lodges, which would be advertising. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 03:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of a reason why this lake is a thing readers need information about in the first place? That's the question that requires answering here, because we're not an indiscriminate collection of "all information that exists" — we have standards to determine what kinds of information we should be maintaining and what kinds we should not. The controlling question is not just whether readers would be "deprived" of this information if we deleted it, because every single person, place or thing who exists at all could always technically answer that question with a yes — the question is whether there's a reason why the topic is important enough that its non-inclusion in Wikipedia would be "depriving" readers of anything they need to know. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I go fishing on McArthur Lake? Yes, it's used for recreation and there are over 20 camps and cottages there. I might get walleye or northern pike, but I'd better not go in the winter because the lake is frozen over. It looks beautiful in the photo but the map shows it's a little out of the way. I didn't know any of that before I read the article. Station1 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can go fishing on very nearly every lake that exists at all, unless you'll get arrested for trespassing because it's on private property (and even then you can still try), or it's so badly polluted that the fish are dead (and even then you can still try). In Canada, basically every lake freezes over in the winter except the Great Lakes, and even the Great Lakes freeze over too if the weather stays cold enough for long enough. And since ice fishing is a thing, even the fact that a lake has frozen over for the winter still doesn't prevent you from going fishing. So nope, you haven't "learned" anything that makes this lake notable, because you haven't stated anything that makes it different from every other lake that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I learned that I won't get arrested for trespassing and that not all the fish are dead. Are there also camps and cottages at Bolton Lake (Cochrane District, Ontario), Cariad Lake, Kesagami Lake, or Gillies Lake, and can I get northern pike and walleye there? Some of them seem smaller but Gillies Lake does have wheelchair access and a swimming area. McArthur Lake might not have one, because of the rocky shore. The point is that this article has more information than many, maybe most, articles about lakes, and assuming the author got the information from reliable sources, the lake must be notable. It hurts no one for this information to remain and might be helpful to someone. More knowledge is better than less knowledge. Station1 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are valid reasons in and of themselves why a lake needs an encyclopedia article about it. On the types of sources shown here, it would be possible to write an article about every single lake that exists at all anywhere in the world — no lake ever fails to show up on a map, for example — but we can't feasibly sustain an article about every single lake that exists at all anywhere in the world. What a lake requires, to qualify for a Wikipedia article, is evidence that it's more notable than most other lakes for some substantive reason (such as at least the ability to show that the lake has been the subject of substantive coverage about it), not just the ability to verify that it's on maps and there are fish in it. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No lake needs an article about it. It will go on as it is, whether or not we have an article. The only difference is that fewer people will know about it. Why would we want fewer people to know about it? Station1 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Every single person, place or thing who exists at all, including you, me, my dead cat and the park bench behind my apartment building, could make the exact same argument that a Wikipedia article is necessary because "people won't know about it otherwise" — what needs to be answered is not "why would we want fewer people to know about it?", but "why is it our job to care how many people will or won't know about it?". The way any article about anything gets into Wikipedia is "enough reliable source coverage about it exists to demonstrate that it passes a notability criterion", not just "it exists and here's a map and a photograph to prove it" — what an article needs to be keepable is an affirmative reason why it's important for people to know about it, namely passage of a notability criterion and reliable source coverage about it to support an article. "Fewer people will know about it otherwise" — once again, an argument which every single person, place or thing who has ever existed at all could always make — is not a keep rationale in and of itself absent a reason why it's important for people to know about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this particular lake is notable. I base that on the fact that someone was able to write a moderately substantial article about it using other than original research; it has more information and sources than many similar articles. Your threshold for notability is much higher than mine. That's simply a difference of opinion. Station1 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the only sources they used to write that article were maps, an indiscriminate government directory of every single geographic name that exists anywhere in all of Canada, and a tangential source which verifies the bedrock geology of the overall region without even mentioning the lake at all in the process. That is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a lake notable — and while you're certainly right that my threshold for notability is higher than yours, you're wrong about which of our thresholds for notability is in alignment with Wikipedia's threshold. (Hint: that would be mine.) Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I said anything about whose threshold was aligned with WP's. I'll just point out Category:Lakes of Cochrane District for comparables. Station1 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Little Lake (Peterborough)
I have a bad feeling about where the above comment may lead – could be the start of a mass extinction. Just as long as nobody tries to delete any lakes in Category:Lakes of Peterborough County. Don't even think about Little Lake. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly identify specifically what sources in the Google Books search are about the lake in any substantive and non-trivial way — sources which mention the lake in the process of being about something else are not the same thing as sources about the lake. We look at the quality, not the raw number, of Google hits when using Google to establish notability — so what sources are about the lake for the purposes of establishing the notability of the lake? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably not going to like this answer, but this is substantially about the lake. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, those are just passing mentions, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two glancing mentions of the lake's existence in a journal article about a different lake is not "substantially" about this lake. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A lake does not pass GEOLAND on "books on the geology of the area" — a lake passes GEOLAND on sources in which the lake itself is the subject of the source, of which there have been zero shown but maps and routine indiscriminate databases. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. GEOLAND is quite explicit that the notability of geographic features is conditional on that feature being the subject of reliable source attention in its own right, independently of simply appearing on maps or in routine geographic names databases. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant section 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.

There has to be enough material for an encyclopedic article, and more than one source, which is clearly the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources here that are about the lake are maps and an indiscriminate "every geographic name that exists in Canada" directory. There are exactly zero other sources here that are about the lake in any subatantive way, just ones which glancingly mention its existence in the process of being about other things — which is not how you establish a lake as notable enough to clear the GEOLAND bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 18 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.
More