Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes in Michigan


 * 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    WP:SNOW Keep. Article improvement fully meets concerns expressed. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

List of lakes in Michigan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete this is handled fine by the Category:Lakes of Michigan. If this article were somewhat good, it would have the 93 lakes listed there and someone would keep it up. But it's not good and will unlikely be as full as the category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have tagged this list for rescue, although it is not an article there is plenty of information to expand this list quickly as well as plenty of sources to indicate that a certain lake is in Michigan. Lets not mix categories and lists up, this list could become very helpful if it is fixed up. - Marcusmax ( speak ) 23:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep   All categories can and should have a corresponding list. It's an alternate and complementary form of organization. Some people don't  like them. I'm not sure I like categories. Neither view is relevant. This article was nominated for deletion  only 43 minutes after it was started, which is ridiculously short time to expect someone to do an article as good as the nominator requires. Someone can and will just start by copying in the names from the category, adding information such as county and size, and then looking for others that dont have an article yet. Probably all lakes large enough to be called so in the state are appropriate for articles, and the red links will be a guide. That's one of the purposes of lists.   DGG (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . Yes, it could be helpful and the list could sort the lakes by size, depth, or anything else, but the current list is a false start and it's unlikely to be improved on short notice. The current version is harmful in the sense that it is completely unhelpful to readers. It was created way too soon. (Anyone who wants to create a list like this, wouldn't be inconvenienced by the deletion of these two names since we have a complete category of lakes to pull from.) - Mgm|(talk) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now it's rewritten, it no longer resembles the two-entry list I had to look at. Therefore it is no longer harmful in my book. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. To respond to one point Mgm makes, I don't see how keeping this list can be harmful.  It can only be improved from here. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOHARM for a contrary view. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my own defense, I wasn't basing my keep argument on "it does no harm", rather I was asking why Mgm thought it was harmful. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- I've populated the list and will be helping to turn it into a useful table with info, etc. SMSpivey (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Linguist at Large and I just made the list into a sortable wikitable, added some very brief into words and have generally spiffed up the article. The original concerns with the article have been fully dealt with. SMSpivey (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep I was two and a half hours in working on the same project when I found out this was done. Oh well, you added more information, but I will help by adding to it.   Quistisffviii (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists and categories should work together and per DGG.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is incomplete, but contains more information than a category since it notes the location by county, and the size of the lake. Reasonable WP:LIST as it serves a navigational purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a link to the Michigan government website that list every lake in the state by county. The article meets notability requirements.   D r e a m Focus  10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep per everyone except the nom.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep in concurrance with wikipedia precedent for such lists.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per all of the above. It's cases like this that make me wish we had a policy against nominating articles for deletion so soon after their creation. And the nominator really ought not to rely on the faulty crystal ball that told him that this "will unlikely be as full as the category". DHowell (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - hello? An article has not to be perfect from the beginning. If there's something, well, that's a case for sofixit. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  07:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As the creator of this article, I naturally think it should be kept. The reason that I created it was that I was reading about Lakes on Wikipedia and I found a box at the bottom of an article (no, sorry it was at the bottom of the WikiProject Lakes page... I knew I had a very good reason!) linking to pages of Lists for Lakes in each state, but there was no page for Michigan. So I created it. I didn't do much, other than add two lakes that I thought could use some more work (which I had been reading at the time), especially on the scientific/ecology/ecosystem side (certianly not my specialty). I figured that once the list existed, people would naturally add the names of lakes as they were working on them. I in no way thought that the list was complete. I looked at it as an ongoing part of the Wikiproject:Michigan, and assumed that other users would find it usefull and naturally expand it. I see that that has been done, and I think that the page looks beautiful and I commend all the good work that tireless wikipedians have poured into it. Sometimes I feel like someone is following me around determined to delete ever article I start without ever giving it a chance. I know I'm not the best editor, and it's definatly been a learning process. It would really be nice if editors here would be a little less "delete" happy and a little more "help happy" but that's just my personal rant. (ie. Ok, I see you've started this article that's really not up to standard, let me show you how you can improve it and find others to help you make it better as well.) Anyway... sorry to go on and on. Vote to keep on account of consistancy with Wikiproject Lakes. amyanda (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep in Spring the list has useful information that category can not have.--Caspian blue 05:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep This is exactly what wikipedia should have, useful and policy compliant. -- Banj e  b oi   17:57, 15 March 2009 (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.