Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Man 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 01:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Young Man Lake

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

Fails GNG/NGEO due to lack of significant coverage. The two sources that aren't databases or maps have only the briefest of passing mentions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Montana. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Please see Articles for deletion/Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) as it contains a list of articles by the same author that were included in this mass deletion attempt by the same nom.  Atsme 💬 📧 21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note by closer: Those were nominated later. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 05:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep there are now four sources (I mistyped this and when I reread it I corrected it) I (still) think it passes WP:GEOLAND but only barely.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 05:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per nom, just barely scrapes through passing WP:GEOLAND, has potential to become a better article. N1TH Music (talk) 14:31, 22 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.--MONGO (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * leaning delete but perhaps a better solution would be to redirect this to a List of lakes in Glacier National Park or the like, as this isn't the only such lake which is of minor importance but which could be described (and mapped) in a list article. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - easily passes WP:GEOLAND – I cannot believe this article is at AfD.  Atsme  💬 📧 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding that the discussion at Articles for deletion/Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) applies here as well. There is also NEXIST, so I did a bit of resarch, and the books are out there if anyone wants to expand the article. For example Montana's Best Fishing Waters, and Fishing Glacier National Park pg 211. The books are out there, and during that quickie search there was an article about how that particular lake came by it's name.   Atsme  💬 📧 12:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep a WP:GEOLAND pass. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 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 3 lines and 4 sources after 11 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 Glacier National Park (U.S.) 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. Mangoe makes a good point that a notable article is possible if all these features of the park were taken together in a list article or an encylopaedic article about the park's lakes (which could discuss park gelology for instance). But taken individually, these are just not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The part of the guideline you quoted does not apply to nationally protected areas and named natural features. I have already explained this at the other 10 or so articles in this mass deletion attempt. 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  💬 📧 21:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are quoting from the "this page in a nutshell" from WP:NGEO. To be clear, no one here disputes that Glacier 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 Young Man Lake. Now I don't want to get int some  kind of battle on this. AfD is a discussion, 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?
 * I have said my piece and will leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND. I agree that a geographical feature should be deleted (or redirected) when there is nothing of import besides a database listing. But again, Wikipedia has features of a gazetteer; that's why WP:GEOLAND exists. And any "young men" who make the climb may enjoy the article. I am sympathetic, but unconvinced, by a "merge" argument—parks have many lakes and it would be unwieldy to include them in the main article. I would be okay with merging into an article List of lakes in Glacier National Park, but that doesn't exist yet. Ovinus (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GEOLAND Bruxton (talk) 16:20, 29 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.