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. Exactly what form the page should have is a subject for the talk page, but it is more than clear that there is no consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

McArthur Lake (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)

Article does not comply with Wikipedia standards for a standalone list. It is not an encyclopedic topic; putting in sourced statements about random factoids does not cover that up. I myself wrote an essay against use of wp:TNT, but now I want to apply wp:TNT to completely get rid of this. Perhaps a disambiguation page can be allowed later. Note: The previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacArthurs Lake, was closed, unhelpfully in my opinion, cutting short discussion/decision about what to do. I installed the disambiguation page version; User:Aymatth2 has restored the list-article version. Previous AFD participants User:Squeamish Ossifrage, User:Yngvadottir, User:LaundryPizza03, User:Sandstein, could you please comment/vote on whether this page should be a stripped down disambiguation page, as in this version or a list-article (with pictures, sources) as in this version? Doncram (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lake McArthur
McArthur Lake, Northwest Territories
McArthur Lake, Ontario
Lac McArthur
McArthur Lake, Idaho
There is clearly a need for a list or disambiguation article to help readers navigate to the one they want. The advantage of the list format is that it supports information about several other lakes with similar names that do not warrant an article on their own. This is in line with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. But the format and content can be discussed on the article talk page. The question here is whether it should be deleted. It is useful and well-sourced, so should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would be useful is a disambiguation page; there is nothing further useful about the improper list. If you want to change how disambiguation pages are done in Wikipedia to allow photos and sources and random thoughts, then go ahead and open a discussion at wp:MOSDAB, and you will not succeed.
I previously pointed out that the section on "Common selection criteria" is about how many items to include in a standalone list, IF it is established that the list topic is acceptable. Here, the list topic "lakes with McArthur in their name" is not acceptable. It would be okay to have a proper, stripped-down disambiguation page as is done for other common lake names (Round Lake, Long Lake, etc.). --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move McArthur Lake (disambiguation) to the base title. Updating my !vote per developments below. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a set index article, similar to the examples: List of peaks named Signal and List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise. Perhaps that would be clearer if it was moved to List of lakes named McArthur, but I see no reason for that. As a set index it can support navigation and and give more information. The scenario I see is:
Granny is talking about her childhood vacations in Nova Scotia, where she fished in Lake McArthur. You look it up on Wikipedia and find there are three lakes with names like that, none with articles, but they give some information. You ask her, "Did it have a railway along the shore? Was there an old sawmill? Does the name Framboise ring a bell? She answers and you have found the lake, with links to the map, sources and pictures.
If we strip this set index down to a bare bones disambiguation page, we lose encyclopedic information and do our readers a disservice. To quote the guideline, "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, so common sense is required..." Aymatth2 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the navigational purpose of disambiguation pages are superior to the current set-up. The encyclopedic content is covered by the articles themselves, so there would be nothing that is "lost". The whole reason disambiguation pages are so "bare-bones" is so readers can find the article they want with as little lost effort as possible, which the status quo is awful at accomplishing. -- Tavix (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a place for both, and set index articles and disambiguation pages can coexist. For example the DAB Signal Mountain has a "See also" link to List of peaks named Signal. The DAB quickly takes the user to the article they want – if it exists. The Set index article gives information about all the entries in the set, whether or not they have articles. So we could move this one to List of lakes named McArthur, then make this title a DAB, but I think that works better if most entries in the index have articles, not the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Point of fact: Disambiguation pages can/do include redlinked entries. Those should comply with MOS:DABRL, i.e. be supported by a bluelink to an article that shows the redlink in context, i.e. is suggestive that the topic deserves an article. Given Yngvadottir's misunderstanding, their "!vote" should be downweighted IMO, though Yngvadottir is welcome to revise or clarify their view.
A complete disambiguation page would include the following (with the Australia item being a redlink compliant with disambiguation page requirements) --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
McArthur Lake, MacArthurs Lake, MacArthur's Lake, or variations, may refer to:
Australia
Canada
British Colombia
  • Lake McArthur in Yoho National Park west of Lake Louise (Alberta)
Ontario
Northwest Territories
Quebec
  • Lac McArthur (McArthur Lake), in the Outaouais region, near Denholm
United States
That's all that's needed here. --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Red links indicate that an article is desirable. Whether or not practice has changed with respect to red links on DAB pages (it was my understanding that entries were to be kept to one per line, such that a red-linked item should only be added immediately prior to creating the article, with the line otherwise not linking the item but only the page to which the reader is referred for coverage), as Doncram says below, "A disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to Wikipedia-notable topics", whereas a list can include items that do not merit an article, but complete the set. If we remove this list and only keep the DAB page, we lose information—with references, yet—for lakes that fall below that threshhold. That does the reader a disservice and is pointless. An encyclopedia should not contain only information that merits entire articles. In addition, noting a point made below by Aymatth2, a list as opposed to a table not only renders better on a small screen but enables linking to items (including on the DAB page if desired) using links to subheadings. That facilitates reader searching. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lakes without articles are in fact allowed on a disambiguation page, as long as there is a redlink to them from some other article. If a lake is never expected to get an article and there is no redlink to it, then we don't want to mention it at all. A disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to Wikipedia-notable topics. --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see guidelines on this, but think the common practice is
  • If most of the set members have articles there should be a DAB page setname plus a set index list of setname to handle the complete set.
  • If most of the set entries do not have articles, there should just be a set index setname. The idea is not to force someone looking for a member without an article to go first to the DAB page, then click through to the set index, which they may not spot at the foot of the DAB page.
In this case, there are five lakes with articles and six that are unlikely to ever get articles. My feeling is that only a set index setname is most appropriate. It will take slightly longer to find the first five, but much less time to find the other six. But obviously the first five are more likely search targets, so this is not a strong argument. It would be easy enough to rename this one as a "list of" index, then make a short DAB with a link to the index. I prefer the heading-style list given here to a table-style list mainly because wide tables render poorly on phones, the main viewing device these days. This is just personal preference. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a case like this where everything with the similar name is part of the same set, only the set index article is required, because every item that would appear on a dab page is already included and linked from the set index. Only if there were topics unrelated to lakes -- say "McArthur Lake (play)", "McArthur Lake (song)" and "McArthur Lake (painting)" -- would we need a separate dab page with the article about the lakes being one of the items. Station1 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. – that makes sense. The set index is primarily a type of list article, but it can serve as a type of DAB if it covers all the meanings. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a content dispute, and technically that should be resolved by gaining consensus on the article's talk page, not through an AfD. But I think we would all like to put it to bed. @Power~enwiki: Do you have a policy-based reason for your vote to convert the article from a set index to a disambiguation page? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing this can be covered as an AFD. Conceptually I think it is better understood as disagreement about whether a list-article should exist, so AFD is better. In two seconds I could create McArthur Lake (disambiguation) and then everyone would agree this is technically correct, to have an AFD about the list-article, with intent for it to be deleted and have the disambiguation page moved there. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Apparently that was confusing, as if the creation of a separate DAB page would make me okay with this list-article. No, I nominated this list-article for deletion and stand by my opinion it should be deleted.--Doncram (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is consensus that the article fully conforms with the standard set index list structure. No policy-based reason has been given to convert it from that to a disambiguation page. I suggest we take the closer's decision here as a decision to not reopen the same stale argument on the article's talk page. But let's give user:Power~enwiki a chance to give us a reason other than "I don't like set indexes". Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Doncram and Aymatth2 actually agree on how to handle this, I'll stay out and this can probably be speedily closed with whatever consensus they both support. If not, my take is that Set Index articles generally don't contain paragraph-length descriptions of topics that aren't otherwise notable. If that is the appropriate treatment for content of this type, I'd rather see it on a "List of lakes in Nova Scotia" rather than a "List of lakes called McArthur". Having the same name doesn't really meet "things of only one type", the various lakes are different things that share the same name; almost every entry in Category:Set indices on lakes is also disambiguated by province/state. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Aymathh2 and I do not agree. The list-article should be deleted. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "list-article". I assume you mean anything beyond your DAB page. To try to be entirely clear: as McArthur Lake (Idaho) and McArthur Lake (Northwest Territories) both seem to be acceptable articles (in addition to various Lake MacArthur type names), a DAB is necessary. I don't see the need for anything further here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake is a standard set index article, a list of lakes called "McArthur Lake", including five that have articles and six that do not. It gives 1–3 lines of text about each lake, citing sources. It may help readers looking for information on a given McArthur Lake, even if there is no article for that lake. The AfD nominator agrees there should be a page with this name. Is there any guideline that says everything after the lead section in this set index article should be deleted, so it becomes a DAB? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Says you. Okay, call it "set index article", rather than a list-article. This AFD proposes that it should be deleted, because it is not a notable topic for a set index article or list-article. There has to be some standard. Why not create a complete list in mainspace listing Aymatth2 and myself and other editors here. It would be a complete list of a set. That does not make it Wikipedia-notable.
Trying now to cut through minor confusion here, I have created McArthur Lake (disambiguation) as a disambiguation page. This AFD continues on whether the "set index article" should be kept or deleted to make way for the disambiguation page to be moved to simply "McArthur Lake". Several editors above have agreed that there should be a disambiguation page, and fewer have agreed that the current list-article is a set index article, seemingly therefore supporting its continuation. But none of these have provided evidence on it meeting any standard for notability. We do not want 50,000 or more set index articles about lakes which tries to save steps for Granny's Google search; we have an existing geography-based list-system of lakes. --Doncram (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The DAB page is completely redundant to the lead section of the set index list, but more long-winded, and was just created to make a point. Probably simpler to delete it as part of closing this discussion. There is no reason to have two pages with the same list of five articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that McArthur Lake (disambiguation) has been plagiarized from McArthur Lake by taking a copy and pruning out much content. The proposal by User:Doncram is to delete McArthur Lake and then replace it by the plagiarized version, which would wipe out all history of the editors who did the work to assemble this list. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is emphatically not plagiarism. It concerns me that you think it is. Frickeg (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is plagiarism. That is when you copy material from another source without due acknowledgement. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the way it should have been done. The strange decision to have one heading per list entry, the same text and sequence as McArthur Lake, clearly shows copying. A more normal structure would have been that of the lead section in McArthur Lake, a simple 5-line bulleted list, but that simple list did not exist when the (attributed) copy at Talk:McArthur Lake/Alternate1 was taken. One way to have handled this would have been through an acknowledgement in the edit summary. A much simpler way to convert to a DAB (which I do not think should be done) would be to replace the last line in the lead section with ((disambiguation)) and delete the remainder. That leaves all the history intact. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is what Wikipedia:Set index articles are all about. List of peaks named Signal is a recognized type of article. The title is not a notable subject, but the list is useful. The above vote is "I don't like set index articles". Again, if there were any case for converting this article to a DAB, that should be done by simply deleting everything but the lead section, leaving the edit history intact, The clumsy "delete-then-move" the strangely structured and unattributed DAB serves only to destroy edit history. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many thousands of articles that are lists of people who have no connection other than their first name, including Johnny, Johnathan, Johne, Johnie, and Johny. - Station1 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To see how it would look, I put the article into table format at Talk:McArthur Lake/Alternate2. This layout is more like the sample articles cited at Wikipedia:Set index articles. It does not look nearly as bad on a mobile as I expected. That change could be discussed on the article talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. I might put the bluelinks at the top as well as in the list, though. SportingFlyer talk 02:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have done that. So the front of the article still looks like a disambiguation page, then the detail follows, but it is not broken up with headings. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If all the eleven lakes have articles this page can be trimmed down to a disambiguation page. I will do that after splitting out articles for the six lakes that have no pages if the decision is to split. I am a bit hesitant because I think I scraped the bottom of the barrel for online sources on McArthur Lakes, so the information given here on the non-article lakes is just about all that is available. In the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McArthur Lake, Ontario it has been pointed out that WP:GEOLAND is extremely tolerant of articles on lakes that would fail WP:GNG. The guideline says:

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.

But rightly or wrongly these very short, maybe single-sourced articles, are likely to get AfD challenges. I do not want to create articles that just get deleted, but am not sure I would have the energy to defend them. I suppose they could be redirects to paragraphs in articles on local geography, but that seem a bit artificial when the local geography unit contains many lakes but its article does not yet discuss any of them. @DGG: Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
anyone can challenge anything, dut so far only aabout a tenth of articles on such geographic features have been defeated at AfD. Factors preventing deletion have been whether there are facilities at the lake, and especially if the lake is aa major part of a public park. (If there are facilities of a park, it should in prinicple be able to getsources about their creation or designation, but these are the sort of sources that are difficult to find; though they sometimes turn up in the online portions of local newspapers--but the entire run of all local newspaers are yet online,and many local and State official records are still only in print. Still, the possibility means they are soureable; there is no requirement they be currently sourced. Factors leading towards deletion have been if htere is literally only a name on a map, if t's a small lake on private property, and especially if there is a hotel or resort on the lake and the article iswritten to highlight it in a promotional manner. It's not artificial to make articles where we conveniently can, and add more later--most of WP has grown in just that fashion. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that opinion DGG, which I respect. I have started MacArthur's Lake (Victoria) and will take a shot at the remaining seven lakes that do not yet have articles. When that is done, tomorrow I hope, I will trim this article down into a disambiguation page. I fully support the objective that Yngvadottir has noted of making Wikipedia a useful gazetteer. Thanks again, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a first cut and will tidy up tomorrow. I see no reason to keep this discussion open. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:54, 16 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