Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Naver


 * 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. Consensus that the article needs some cleanup, but WP:DINC. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Loch Naver

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

Non-notable Loch. All references are just links to online maps, etc. with nothing supporting notability. Singularity42 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep But the Loch is Notable, and the sources have information. Especially under the Fishing Section. It is like Loch Urigilll or Loch Borollan or Loch Rimsdale or Loch Hope or Loch Brora, why didn't they ever get proposed for deletion, they're smaller, more remote and are less important that Loch Naver? I don't understand. N1TH Music (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep this seems to be a resonably sized lake and there seems to be coverage.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but tidy. Loch exists, is large enough and seems notable enough. However the article needs a real clean up, removal of inappropriate references and I'd love to know where all these settlements around it are as only Alltnaharra seems to actually exist. Canterbury Tail talk 23:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OS Cites all 4 as existing as does Canmore and others, particularly Klibreck which is cited by all maps I found. Also Ben Klibreck exists N1TH Music (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but even on the OS maps I cannot find any settlements by the name of Redhackaistelll and Dailmallhart situated on the loch. Canterbury Tail talk 14:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Canterbury Tail here on second thought it is a map and might not be reliable but it's still produced by OS. Also I think you spelled Reidhachaisteil wrong or maybe I did because if I search it up I get many results including a source from Canmore which I think we can all agree is reliable. N1TH Music (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So that's a dead abandoned settlement of a few houses, not an active settlement. No one lives there, so they're not settlements. Don't you see how much of this is original research and WP:SYNTHESIS to reach the wrong conclusion? Canterbury Tail talk 17:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Canterbury Tail I understand the part about how a dead settlement maybe shouldn't be listed in the settlements section, even though my judgement was if the place is or was populated than it counts, but I was probably wrong. But honestly, no I don't see how this is "Original Research" OS and Canmore both show me these localities or abandoned settlements or whatever they are called and I label them as settlements. The OS map writes them in a kind of text they would use for settlements and so does the map Canmore provides. Additionally the Canmore map (Which is an edition of OS) Lists places such as "Gravel Pits" "Sheepfolds" and other things I would associate with active settlements there. However if you remain certain that these do not classify as settlements that nobody has any issue with removing them from the list. N1TH Music (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Something which has hitherto not been mentioned regarding issues of active or abandoned settlements is that the population of this area was impacted by the events of the Sutherland Clearances two hundred years ago. For example, "Soon afterwards Sellar went to Achness, near the eastern end of Loch Naver, and gave formal notice to quit to some of the tenants on his land." AllyD (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: This article was brought to AfD less than 15 minutes after it was created? I am not sure how much WP:BEFORE was done in that time, but that could have identified existing coverage such as the article (albeit brief) in the Gazetteer for Scotland. As things stand, it is a bit of a mess, with the article creator having responded by moving it to draft, and neither the draft nor the redirect carrying this AfD notification. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the history of use of the Loch, see also the summary in Groome's 19th century Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland and the Canmore entry on the Grummore Broch: "This broch ... occupies a short, flat, projecting point of low ground on the north shore of Loch Naver ... On the low, fertile ground around the shores of Loch Naver stand many modern farms as well as two more brochs on the opposite shore." . AllyD (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A little WP:AGF re WP:BEFORE, please? Face-smile.svg . I saw the article shortly after it was created as I was doing NPP at the time. There were approximately 50 or so links in the article in its original version.  I went through them, and from what I could tell they were either just maps of the area or references to places nearby.  By that point there had been no additional content to the references (the additional references added were after I tagged it for AfD yesterday).  My logic was given the creator was able to add 50+ links to the article but couldn't find anything that actually supported notability, then they likely didn't exist or could not be easily located (I didn't know about the CIR issues raised at ANI at the time).  Anyway, given there are better sources, I have no objection to the article staying with a major clean up. Singularity42 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Didn't we recently have a discussion somewhere that resulted in the disallowing of moving an article to draft space while it is at AfD? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, here it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have moved it back from draft. Jay (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a bad practice to send a 14 minute old article to AFD. There are many alternative to automatic deletion and this is highly discouraging to content creators. It would have been better to open a conversation with the page creator rather trying to delete an article as soon as it has been created. The page creator was incorrect to move a page involved in an AFD discussion to Draft space but that could have been a move you made rather than advocating immediate deletion for a new article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.