Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Bear 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 16:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Grizzly Bear Lake

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG and GEOLAND due to lack of significant coverage. Aside from topo maps and GNIS, the only source is a passing mention in a climbing guide which is not sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 05:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. –dlthewave ☎ 05:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:GEOLAND, it is a named geographical feature with sources.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 05:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist. dlthewave prodded this article less than a week ago and now sends it to Afd after I have provided additions to it which seem to meet GEOLAND.--MONGO (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Dr vulpes is correct. Lightburst (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says 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.. Here we have an article with 2 lines and 3 sources after 10 years. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The stubs are daughter articles of Grand Teton National Park which is an FA. There is no way it would remain a FA if we went and added these details for every single lake, mountain and other item found in that park...thats WHY we have daughter articles. While some of the details may seem scant, they are still worth keeping because if they do not reside in standalones, the information wont easily exist on this website at all.--MONGO (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If they were daughter articles, they would (a) be actual articles and not 2 line stubs and (b) be mentioned in the parent article. This is the problem you have here: you have spun off every feature of the park into stubs that can never be encylopaedic articles, but you could write an encylopaedic daughter article that brought them together. For instance Lakes of the Grand Teton National Park, or Trails... or Important sights of...
 * Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, and every article is meant to be encylopaedic. Stubs are fine if the subject of the stub is notable and just waiting for someone to write the article, but they are not fine when a full article is impossible because the granularity is so fine that there is nothing much to say!
 * I am not saying you cannot mention Grizzly Bear Lake anywhere on Wikipedia. I am saying that the interested reader is best served if the mention of it is in the context of an encyclopaedic article, and not a 2 line stub that tells them nothing at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Four sentences currently, not two...simple math. I could break up the last one into a fifth if need be. There is probably potential to add even more. You are certainly entitled to think that this article is not even WP:STUB grade, even though that is patently incorrect. There is NO REASON nor has there ever been to list what are maybe 30 lakes in the park main article as that would make it not a FA and I would be told to "create" stubs or daughter articles. I certainly appreciate the lecture, "Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, and every article is meant to be encylopaedic" as I had not know this before and am now enlightened.--MONGO (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. :) And I said it was 2 lines, not 4 sentences. I appreciate the number of lines may alos vary depending on how wide your browser is. But again, arguments made at AfD should be about the notability of the subject. Anyone telling you to split a large article into multiple stubs that cannot be expanded into encyclopaedic articles is telling you wrong. If you have an article that is unworkably large, you would split the article in ways that made the spun of material encylopaedic articles in their own right too. 30 lakes is not so much, tbh. You could do that article, and if you found that suddenly you had a huge geology section making it unworkable, you would then perhaps spin off "Geology and hydrology of ..." And what you end up with is something that is much more useful.
 * You are not wrong to want to have articles about these lakes. The question is how to make the article in such a way that it is genuinely useful and encyclopaedic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sirfurboy, I sincerely hope that you will be taking something positive away from these discussions because the arguments you are making are irrelevant to AfD as applicable to protected areas and named natural features, among a few other PAGs. MONGO, whose work has been targeted in this mass deletion attempt, happens to be an editor with 12 FAs under his belt, a half-million award, and creator of over 1200 articles. I'd say he has been around the block a few times. Anyway, as I've tried to impress upon you, the NGEO page banner clearly states (my bold underline): Places with nationally protected status  (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and  named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable.  We also have WP:NEXIST, which squelches your source argument; proper sources have been cited and others exist. WP:SNG clearly states Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and  the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG.  I'll go another step further with WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Your comment about this article's 3 lines is irrelevant at AfD because (a) the current material is more than simple statistics, and (b) being a stub does not effect notability. HTH  Atsme  💬 📧 22:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can take the ad hominem lines to my talk page if you like. The only question here is whether the article meets notability guidelines. As I said to you elsewhere, You are quoting from the "this page in a nutshell" from WP:NGEO. To be clear, no one here disputes that Grand Teton National Park is notable, so no need to quote that part. So the relevant text is named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. but the page goes on to give guidelines for what constitutes verifiable information, and so, on that same page, in the exposition - rather than the nutshell guide - gives us WP:GEOLAND which I quoted. What does the nutshell mean by "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"? We read that The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. And again, WP:NEXIST is not relevant. I have not said that the sources must be in the article. I have said I have found no evidence that sufficient sources exist anywhere for a standalone article on Grizzly Bear Lake. AfD is a discussion, (and I have been in one or two discussions in the past!) and my view is that there is a lot of sense in having some kind of article that brings all the lakes or sites/sights or whatever together into a single encyclopaedic article. I just think there are better ways to do this then to make all these stubs all over the place that no one touches for years, no one reads and no one benefits from. It is clear you care about the fact that this information is on Wikipedia somewhere but wouldn't it be better in some more encylopaedic article? Grizzly Bear lake does not meet the notability guidelines, and this is just dancing around the subject.
 * I have said my piece and will leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep it has passed WP:NEXIST from the get-go, and also passes NGEO – the same argument applies here that applies to multiple other prodded and/or nommed articles by this same user as follows:
 * Dudley Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
 * Young Man Lake
 * Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
 * Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming)
 * Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
 * Holly Lake - prod reverted
 * Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
 * Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
 * Delta Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) - prod reverted, more info added
 * Bradley Lake - prod reverted
 * The nom could've started a discussion with the article creator FIRST, and maybe tagged the articles with a more sources needed tag.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.