- 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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Wrangler Lake ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks significant coverage to establish notability under GEOLAND or GNG. The only sources that give anything more than a passing mention are Yellowstone up close and personal (a series of photos on a personal website with no description other than the location) and Hiking Yellowstone National Park which mentions it in the context of a nearby hike with little to no coverage of the lake itself. – dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. – dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - It gets a mention in
[1] an
[2] as well as some hiking trails and maps. It also gets a mention in
[3] which says of it
Wrangler Lake. Compared to the park's main lake, it's a speck on the map.
. This book tells us elk graze there [4]. This one has a bit more claim to coverage than some we have seen, but at this stage it is hard to say this meets WP:SIGCOV because the lake is largely referred to as a landmark, and the articles are not specifically about the lake. Having said that, this one deserves a bit of extra consideration. Nevertheless the current page is a bit of a disaster. It is literally one line long, telling the reader absolutely nothing. WP:TNT would not go amiss. Anyone could recreate the page when there is something to say. However, I will reserve my !vote until I am sure that no encylopaedic article is possible. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- To add to my comment, this site seems to suggest it is a volcanic eruption site [5], and also links to this article, which has nothing on that. However my searches for any WP:RS about such an eruption have failed. If it has been studied, then that would be significant, but I am still finding no sources to that effect. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I have looked but I cannot find significant coverage per WP:GEOLAND such that an encylopaedic article could be written about this lake. It doesn't even get a mention in Yellowstone guides I looked at, beyond a name on a map or as a hiking destination. It is, I am reasonably certain, a volcanic maar, but not a notable one. I cannot find any evidence it has been of specific or significant interest. Our page is linked from the web at [6] but all our page says is that it is a lake in Yellowstone. The fact of the link does the wikipedia project a disservice. I am aware that simply being a stub is not a reason to delete a page, but on the question as to whether this page could ever contain enough material to be more than a stub is answered "no, not at this time." It would be worth a mention in an article (unwritten at this time) on lakes of Yellowstone, could be mentioned in Maar (but would need a WP:RS) or elsewhere but there is not significant coverage for this article. The only popular fiction reference I found singled it out particularly because it is not significant. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep A named natural feature in a protected area, passes WP:GEOLAND. I started work on the article. Lightburst ( talk) 00:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of lakes of Wyoming, to which I have added this lake. Per GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. ... The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." At this point, there isn't enough info to justify a standalone article IMO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep of the 600 lakes found in Yellowstone National Park 150 are named lakes - and this is one of the named lakes. I want to err on the side of keeping lakes that are named per WP:GEOLAND. There are references about the lake and the "Wrangler Lake Trail". I believe it is better for us to keep an article about the lake based on our guideline. Bruxton ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND on the basis that (a) it's named, and (b) we have something about it beyond a name on a map. It doesn't have to pass GNG. St Anselm ( talk) 19:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete/redirect "
Wrangler Lake: Fishless" is not legitimate content. Even with a relaxation of GNG for a lake, there is not adequate information for an article whatsoever – this 20-acre pond is not a notable place, and being within a national park does not change that.
Reywas92
Talk
20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Reywas92: Definitions of lake vs pond do vary. But 20 acres would likely exceed the minimum requirements for a lake. Minnesota says ten acres. Wisconsin has no size requirement. Some experts say minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres). Also the reference for the lake being "fishless" does not contribute to the lake's notability but it is likely useful information. I do not understand how the project is improved with the deletion of a named natural feature in a protected park. But that is why we are here. Lightburst ( talk) 16:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I was the one who removed the PROD, I'm not sure if there is enough sources for it to be notable but I at least though a full AFD would be better if deletion is desired. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 08:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale: Thanks for removing it! The encyclopedia is likely better with this lake article than without it. Lightburst ( talk) 15:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- To quote WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. 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. (emphasis mine). This does not say that having info beyond stats makes it notable, just that notability is "often" found. Might we benefit from a " List of lakes in Yellowstone National Park" or redirect to List of lakes of Wyoming? That we know it has no fish but is next to a hiking path hardly screams "notable". - Indy beetle ( talk) 06:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There are more than adequate sources provided: 1) Already applied, we have a four page book chapter directly detailing the lake and the hike leading to it. It's a schlepp, according to hiking expert Bill Schneider, who has written 40 books on such subjects. 2) Also applied this helpful fishing book by another content expert helps potential fisherfolk from wasting their 10.3 miles hiking to a fishless lake. 3) Also also already applied we see that the National Park service has catalogged their lake, and the trail leading to it. Can we agree this at least brings us past WP:V? But we don't have to be satisfied with just these unquestionably reliable sources. 4) This reliable atlas gives us two maps and this book gives us a map relating the maps to waterfalls nearby further defining the subject cartographically. 5) This reliable source directly details the hike to and from. This connected source, nonetheless is a reliable source and provides real-time updates on travel conditions (last update today). Put that together with a half dozen (not RS) online camping, trail and hiking guides ( [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and this is certainly a verified destination and can be sufficiently sourced to meet GEOLAND with just the material presented in this process. Way more will be found in offline travel guides and books about the park's history, geography, and geology. If Wikipedia is a gazetteer, then such verifiable places will certainly acquire even better sources eventually. BusterD ( talk) 18:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to take into account recent work done on this article since nomination. But this AFD discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 September 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.
- 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. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Wrangler Lake ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks significant coverage to establish notability under GEOLAND or GNG. The only sources that give anything more than a passing mention are Yellowstone up close and personal (a series of photos on a personal website with no description other than the location) and Hiking Yellowstone National Park which mentions it in the context of a nearby hike with little to no coverage of the lake itself. – dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. – dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - It gets a mention in
[1] an
[2] as well as some hiking trails and maps. It also gets a mention in
[3] which says of it
Wrangler Lake. Compared to the park's main lake, it's a speck on the map.
. This book tells us elk graze there [4]. This one has a bit more claim to coverage than some we have seen, but at this stage it is hard to say this meets WP:SIGCOV because the lake is largely referred to as a landmark, and the articles are not specifically about the lake. Having said that, this one deserves a bit of extra consideration. Nevertheless the current page is a bit of a disaster. It is literally one line long, telling the reader absolutely nothing. WP:TNT would not go amiss. Anyone could recreate the page when there is something to say. However, I will reserve my !vote until I am sure that no encylopaedic article is possible. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 18:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- To add to my comment, this site seems to suggest it is a volcanic eruption site [5], and also links to this article, which has nothing on that. However my searches for any WP:RS about such an eruption have failed. If it has been studied, then that would be significant, but I am still finding no sources to that effect. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 11:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - I have looked but I cannot find significant coverage per WP:GEOLAND such that an encylopaedic article could be written about this lake. It doesn't even get a mention in Yellowstone guides I looked at, beyond a name on a map or as a hiking destination. It is, I am reasonably certain, a volcanic maar, but not a notable one. I cannot find any evidence it has been of specific or significant interest. Our page is linked from the web at [6] but all our page says is that it is a lake in Yellowstone. The fact of the link does the wikipedia project a disservice. I am aware that simply being a stub is not a reason to delete a page, but on the question as to whether this page could ever contain enough material to be more than a stub is answered "no, not at this time." It would be worth a mention in an article (unwritten at this time) on lakes of Yellowstone, could be mentioned in Maar (but would need a WP:RS) or elsewhere but there is not significant coverage for this article. The only popular fiction reference I found singled it out particularly because it is not significant. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 13:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep A named natural feature in a protected area, passes WP:GEOLAND. I started work on the article. Lightburst ( talk) 00:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of lakes of Wyoming, to which I have added this lake. Per GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. ... The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." At this point, there isn't enough info to justify a standalone article IMO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep of the 600 lakes found in Yellowstone National Park 150 are named lakes - and this is one of the named lakes. I want to err on the side of keeping lakes that are named per WP:GEOLAND. There are references about the lake and the "Wrangler Lake Trail". I believe it is better for us to keep an article about the lake based on our guideline. Bruxton ( talk) 02:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND on the basis that (a) it's named, and (b) we have something about it beyond a name on a map. It doesn't have to pass GNG. St Anselm ( talk) 19:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Delete/redirect "
Wrangler Lake: Fishless" is not legitimate content. Even with a relaxation of GNG for a lake, there is not adequate information for an article whatsoever – this 20-acre pond is not a notable place, and being within a national park does not change that.
Reywas92
Talk
20:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Reywas92: Definitions of lake vs pond do vary. But 20 acres would likely exceed the minimum requirements for a lake. Minnesota says ten acres. Wisconsin has no size requirement. Some experts say minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres). Also the reference for the lake being "fishless" does not contribute to the lake's notability but it is likely useful information. I do not understand how the project is improved with the deletion of a named natural feature in a protected park. But that is why we are here. Lightburst ( talk) 16:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- I was the one who removed the PROD, I'm not sure if there is enough sources for it to be notable but I at least though a full AFD would be better if deletion is desired. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 08:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Crouch, Swale: Thanks for removing it! The encyclopedia is likely better with this lake article than without it. Lightburst ( talk) 15:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- To quote WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. 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. (emphasis mine). This does not say that having info beyond stats makes it notable, just that notability is "often" found. Might we benefit from a " List of lakes in Yellowstone National Park" or redirect to List of lakes of Wyoming? That we know it has no fish but is next to a hiking path hardly screams "notable". - Indy beetle ( talk) 06:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There are more than adequate sources provided: 1) Already applied, we have a four page book chapter directly detailing the lake and the hike leading to it. It's a schlepp, according to hiking expert Bill Schneider, who has written 40 books on such subjects. 2) Also applied this helpful fishing book by another content expert helps potential fisherfolk from wasting their 10.3 miles hiking to a fishless lake. 3) Also also already applied we see that the National Park service has catalogged their lake, and the trail leading to it. Can we agree this at least brings us past WP:V? But we don't have to be satisfied with just these unquestionably reliable sources. 4) This reliable atlas gives us two maps and this book gives us a map relating the maps to waterfalls nearby further defining the subject cartographically. 5) This reliable source directly details the hike to and from. This connected source, nonetheless is a reliable source and provides real-time updates on travel conditions (last update today). Put that together with a half dozen (not RS) online camping, trail and hiking guides ( [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and this is certainly a verified destination and can be sufficiently sourced to meet GEOLAND with just the material presented in this process. Way more will be found in offline travel guides and books about the park's history, geography, and geology. If Wikipedia is a gazetteer, then such verifiable places will certainly acquire even better sources eventually. BusterD ( talk) 18:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to take into account recent work done on this article since nomination. But this AFD discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 September 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.