- 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. After two relists and with a reasonable level of participation we are all over the place. IMO a further relisting is unlikely to bring clarity to this discussion. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Lilltjärnen (Frostviken, Jämtland, 712937-143825) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lilltjärnen (Frostviken, Jämtland, 720074-142259) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's no indication why these lakes are
notable, and they certainly aren't notable due to their size. According to
lakes of Sweden, there are "over 97,500 lakes larger than 2 acres (8,100 m2)". According to the article, this lake has an area 0.0321 km2 (32.1 m2), over two orders of magnitude smaller than the largest hundred thousand lakes. There'd have to be another compelling argument for its significance, and I'm simply not seeing it. --
Tavix (
talk)
15:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment 0.0321 km^2 is 32,100 m^2, not 32.1 m^2. So it's easily in the top 100,000. But so are 99,999 other lakes. That doesn't make it notable, but at least get the math right. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete whatever the actual size, there's no sign of significant coverage in WP:RS. Most searches turn up a village or kindergarten with the same name rather than the lake. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - we love Sweden, but if every "LittleTarn" (my translation) is to have an article, we might as well found a TarnsWiki or an InsigGeoFeaturesWiki for true devotees. No, being a minor geographical feature does not of itself guarantee notability. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:GEO. The other above seems to use a WHOCARES rationale. But that is not relevant. This article definitley needs references and any kind of expansion but it is part of the Geography section of Wikipedia. A lake or a geographic place is not notable or not notable, it is geography. And the admin or user that closes this AfD should consider that even if Delete is in majority here. A article in SvWik exists so that is also an indicator that this place is just not "another spot in Sweden". BabbaQ ( talk) 21:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I assume you mean
WP:NGEO or perhaps
WP:GEOLAND, not the
Geographical coordinates Wikiproject. Even in that case, the statement you are apparently trying to make that geographical places are exempt from notability is
not backed up by that guideline:
...geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable.
Emphasis in original. The challenge to notability has been stated; there need to be sources presented that establish notability and not mere existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I assume you mean
WP:NGEO or perhaps
WP:GEOLAND, not the
Geographical coordinates Wikiproject. Even in that case, the statement you are apparently trying to make that geographical places are exempt from notability is
not backed up by that guideline:
- Keep. The ordinary (and, I think, legal) meaning of presumed is that something will be treated that way unless there is evidence to show the contrary. This allows for the possibility that a truly thorough search would find no evidence -- this would include print as well as online sources in relevant languages. There is no assertion that such as search was done. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Truly" is a weasel word within the meaning of the act, does it include a trawl of forgotten mediaeval manuscripts in minor Danish monasteries or whatever. However, a careful and thorough google search, with knowledge of Swedish, fails to find anything usable. This is a very minor geographic feature. If you are in
sophistical mood, recall that a headland, bay, or creek on that minor tarn is also a feature. Include each of them as separate articles - that way madness lies.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- DGG also got it the wrong way around. It's not that geographical features are presumed to meet WP:GNG. It's that when a feature meets WP:GNG, it's presumed to be notable. This tarn doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can see. Sjö ( talk) 17:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Truly" is a weasel word within the meaning of the act, does it include a trawl of forgotten mediaeval manuscripts in minor Danish monasteries or whatever. However, a careful and thorough google search, with knowledge of Swedish, fails to find anything usable. This is a very minor geographic feature. If you are in
sophistical mood, recall that a headland, bay, or creek on that minor tarn is also a feature. Include each of them as separate articles - that way madness lies.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." (My italics.) There is no information beyond statistics and coordinates, not even in the Swedish article, and it appears that there is none to be found. WP:NGEO points to WP:GNG and says also that a geographical feature that meets WP:GNG isn't guaranteed to be notable. This tarn doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Sjö ( talk) 08:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:NGEO, geographic places are generally notable unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, which has not been given. Smartyllama ( talk) 12:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Smartyllama: Did you read the shortcut you provided? It says:
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable
. I hope you're not saying these tarns are populated! Sjö provided the relevant bullet point above. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Smartyllama: Did you read the shortcut you provided? It says:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:34, 14 June 2017 (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.
- 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. After two relists and with a reasonable level of participation we are all over the place. IMO a further relisting is unlikely to bring clarity to this discussion. Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
- Lilltjärnen (Frostviken, Jämtland, 712937-143825) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lilltjärnen (Frostviken, Jämtland, 720074-142259) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's no indication why these lakes are
notable, and they certainly aren't notable due to their size. According to
lakes of Sweden, there are "over 97,500 lakes larger than 2 acres (8,100 m2)". According to the article, this lake has an area 0.0321 km2 (32.1 m2), over two orders of magnitude smaller than the largest hundred thousand lakes. There'd have to be another compelling argument for its significance, and I'm simply not seeing it. --
Tavix (
talk)
15:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment 0.0321 km^2 is 32,100 m^2, not 32.1 m^2. So it's easily in the top 100,000. But so are 99,999 other lakes. That doesn't make it notable, but at least get the math right. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete whatever the actual size, there's no sign of significant coverage in WP:RS. Most searches turn up a village or kindergarten with the same name rather than the lake. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 ( talk) 07:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - we love Sweden, but if every "LittleTarn" (my translation) is to have an article, we might as well found a TarnsWiki or an InsigGeoFeaturesWiki for true devotees. No, being a minor geographical feature does not of itself guarantee notability. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:GEO. The other above seems to use a WHOCARES rationale. But that is not relevant. This article definitley needs references and any kind of expansion but it is part of the Geography section of Wikipedia. A lake or a geographic place is not notable or not notable, it is geography. And the admin or user that closes this AfD should consider that even if Delete is in majority here. A article in SvWik exists so that is also an indicator that this place is just not "another spot in Sweden". BabbaQ ( talk) 21:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I assume you mean
WP:NGEO or perhaps
WP:GEOLAND, not the
Geographical coordinates Wikiproject. Even in that case, the statement you are apparently trying to make that geographical places are exempt from notability is
not backed up by that guideline:
...geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable.
Emphasis in original. The challenge to notability has been stated; there need to be sources presented that establish notability and not mere existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- I assume you mean
WP:NGEO or perhaps
WP:GEOLAND, not the
Geographical coordinates Wikiproject. Even in that case, the statement you are apparently trying to make that geographical places are exempt from notability is
not backed up by that guideline:
- Keep. The ordinary (and, I think, legal) meaning of presumed is that something will be treated that way unless there is evidence to show the contrary. This allows for the possibility that a truly thorough search would find no evidence -- this would include print as well as online sources in relevant languages. There is no assertion that such as search was done. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Truly" is a weasel word within the meaning of the act, does it include a trawl of forgotten mediaeval manuscripts in minor Danish monasteries or whatever. However, a careful and thorough google search, with knowledge of Swedish, fails to find anything usable. This is a very minor geographic feature. If you are in
sophistical mood, recall that a headland, bay, or creek on that minor tarn is also a feature. Include each of them as separate articles - that way madness lies.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- DGG also got it the wrong way around. It's not that geographical features are presumed to meet WP:GNG. It's that when a feature meets WP:GNG, it's presumed to be notable. This tarn doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can see. Sjö ( talk) 17:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- "Truly" is a weasel word within the meaning of the act, does it include a trawl of forgotten mediaeval manuscripts in minor Danish monasteries or whatever. However, a careful and thorough google search, with knowledge of Swedish, fails to find anything usable. This is a very minor geographic feature. If you are in
sophistical mood, recall that a headland, bay, or creek on that minor tarn is also a feature. Include each of them as separate articles - that way madness lies.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
07:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." (My italics.) There is no information beyond statistics and coordinates, not even in the Swedish article, and it appears that there is none to be found. WP:NGEO points to WP:GNG and says also that a geographical feature that meets WP:GNG isn't guaranteed to be notable. This tarn doesn't even meet WP:GNG. Sjö ( talk) 08:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:NGEO, geographic places are generally notable unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, which has not been given. Smartyllama ( talk) 12:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Smartyllama: Did you read the shortcut you provided? It says:
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable
. I hope you're not saying these tarns are populated! Sjö provided the relevant bullet point above. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
- @
Smartyllama: Did you read the shortcut you provided? It says:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:34, 14 June 2017 (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.