412:, perhaps towards redirecting it. I guess that suggests they are not supporting "Keep". Not that they agreed before this AFD to redirect at the Talk page, which they imply they had, above. Anyhow the community can/should judge on whether a redirect is appropriate or not. In some previous interactions, Aymatth2 did a lot of rearranging of articles they had created and were at AFD, undermining community discussion. IMHO this community discussion should be continued, and the proposal is for the item to be deleted (probably along with removal of coverage that has been shifted to the MacDonald River article), not redirected. --
242:
many of them (more than 500,000 in Quebec alone) and there is nothing substantial to say about most of them. Here, the article is all padding, with stuff about the region incorporated. The creator asserts at its Talk page that "I do not think notability is a key concern with a lake." A fact that they think is remarkable (that the region includes a lake named Jumbo, a river named Ronald, and a river named McDonald) might possibly be mentioned in an article about the region, instead. (However I personally don't "get" that supposed coincidence; the 2008
246:, say, involves an elephant character named Jumbo, but does not involve a Ronald McDonald character, AFAICT. Also in Google map of the area I do not see rivers named Ronald or McDonald, but assuming they do exist, there are thousands of lakes in the vicinity, and it seems unnecessary to create thousands of articles to assert the coincidence in each one.) There is no substantial content here, and
450:
this date was the first "official" naming of this lake. Do you assert that for
Sixteen Islands Lake, where there was a Canadian post office named "Sixteen Islands Lake" in 1899, that the lake was not named until the 1960s? That it was not recorded in any official list, did not appear on any official map? I think it is obvious enough that the source is not valid for the purpose used here.
349:
their database, only. Here, I disbelieve that this was the first official recognition of the name of this lake, and it is not worth mentioning that this was the date that one bureaucratic unit "recognized" it. I will share about myself that I have some personal familiarity with some lakes in Quebec. For example, I visited
727:
says lakes may be notable provided there is enough information beyond statistics and coordinates - the article references merely establish that the lake exists, not that it is notable - all the article provides is how it was named, the location and the climate, nothing to show that the lake itself is
639:
Regarding the comment by User:Reywas92, that has more validity. Certainly the info about the Ronald and MacDonald Rivers is totally irrelevant. But info about the surrounding or adjacent area is pretty standard for all lake articles − obviously no lake article is limited to discussing only the water
456:
i think). Do you seriously want to go there to discuss whether this source is valid in saying what you want it to say? It seems to me that would be wasting time of a number of editors unnecessarily, but I suppose if you cannot see this (or cannot agree to see this), then maybe that is necessary or
343:
does include "Date d'officialisation: 1972-10-03". But I do not believe at all that the lake was named in 1972. I think that was when the
Toponymie commission added an entry into their database. This is similar to how WikiProject SHIPS editors believed for a long time that a date entered into the
241:
This topic is non-notable, there is no information available about this lake besides the fact of its existence and location (which implies elevation, too), plus the fact of when it was registered in a geographic names database. Knowledge is not a
Gazetteer about lakes, in part because there are too
631:
I knew it! Just a matter of time before someone throws the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me without really understanding the principle of it... That page also says: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."
348:
database (i think) was the christening date for a ship, when it could be shown by news reports sometimes that the launching of a ship and its christening happened on a different, earlier date. It turned out the DANFS database date was the date that a government unit got around to entering it into
449:
Thank you for responding to the direct question. But name-calling: "daft"??? I would believe the government source as reliably enough recording when it made the entry, which is what "date d'officialization" or whatever almost certainly means. I do not believe your assertion in the article that
669:
If there were a staff review of this lake on a travel site, I would consider keeping it. Or a fishing site. Or if some poor schlub had been murdered and interred in the lake for 50 years. But there is no information about this lake to base an article on. We might as well try to transcribe the
596:
the sources, you'd see that virtually all of the material in the article (except the location and elevation statistics) is as actually not about the lake itself and that the sources do not actually refer to the lake itself. The content that discusses the lake is the same amount as in the 1-line
510:, with no sources of any substance describing the lake itself, only a database entry with its name and coordinates. Precisely zero of the information previously making up the article was about the Lake, rather the general geography of that region of Quebec, making this a textbook example of a
338:
Okay, to start about one item, the claim there now that "Lac Jumbo was officially named on 3 October 1972." I believe that is possibly false, or at least that it is giving outrageous salience to a non-notable bureaucratic action, and is trivial beyond a degree acceptable to mentioned in an
361:. For any Quebec lake which is obviously legitimate to be covered in Knowledge, I doubt that any one of their articles mentions their corresponding "toponymie" database entry date. For 16 Island Lake, the article mentions instead that its name was in use by 1898 for the post office.
330:
I see that
Aymatth2 is adding stuff purportedly about Jumbo Lake to the MacDonald River article. I may possibly object to every single element they add there, in which case it would not be reasonable to include stuff there or to redirect
514:, exaggerating content and references on tangential information that do not actually support the notability of the subject – or even provide any information about it, unlike the countless Billy Hathorn biographies.
210:
570:. If compared to innumerable 1-line stubs about other lakes, it is obvious that this article is developed far enough along beyond mere statistics. I really don't understand why this one is nominated... --
426:
I have put the article back as it was when nominated, and would be o.k. with keeping it, but still think a redirect is more suitable. There is not yet much information available online, but an entry in the
526:
No known information other than statistics and co-ordinates. A redirect from this title is not appropriate because Jumbo Lake in
Saskatchewan province appears notable and doesn't have an article.----
357:(maybe that is just for the post office?). There is no way in hell that this lake was not officially recognized in many ways, previously, before then, and before the 1968 date given in
703:
does not apply here. An encyclopedia article about a lake should treat it primarily as a geographical entity. Information about the environment is relevant and useful to our readers.
473:
Given the strength of
Aymatth2's statement, and maybe some antagonism here, I suppose it is useful to get more editors to give them feedback on this point. Please see/participate in
163:
385:
204:
290:
435:
does not know when they made this rather odd name official is daft. Government websites may have mistakes, but we generally treat them as reliable sources.
110:
699:. There was a boating accident there last year where two men drowned, which made some noise in the papers, but that does not seem particularly relevant.
95:
670:
entire 1900 US census since we would have as much information about people described therein as we do about this lake. We would probably have more.
542:
474:
432:
170:
308:
I don't see anything worth merging, myself, but could you share what statement or passage you think should be included there? --
90:
83:
17:
136:
131:
350:
140:
225:
546:
192:
123:
104:
100:
614:
757:
40:
428:
269:
393:
186:
475:
Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Commission de
Toponymie for statement about earliest official naming
335:
to there. The additions there are obviously being manufactured to "save" this topic as at least a redirect.
753:
36:
354:
182:
741:
712:
679:
653:
626:
601:
583:
558:
532:
518:
486:
468:
444:
421:
397:
374:
358:
340:
317:
302:
281:
259:
65:
690:
671:
618:
527:
298:
218:
232:
732:- we need something to show that the lake is unique to distinguish it from 500,000 other lakes -
708:
675:
622:
554:
506:
I don't really care if it stays as a redirect or not, but it's blatantly obvious that this fails
440:
389:
277:
737:
724:
511:
507:
482:
464:
417:
370:
313:
255:
79:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
752:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
247:
61:
353:
in Quebec several times, many years before the "officialisation" date in 1996 reported in
127:
365:, would you please concede this point and delete that out of what you've added there? --
198:
729:
649:
579:
294:
704:
700:
598:
550:
515:
453:
436:
405:
362:
273:
733:
696:
478:
460:
413:
366:
309:
251:
243:
640:
portion. I'm normally a deletionist, but I still think this one is acceptable. --
157:
57:
617:. Just because there are other bad articles does not justify this bad article.
332:
119:
71:
642:
572:
452:
There is a venue for discussing what are reliable sources in
Knowledge (
359:
this other
Commission de Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles
345:
408:, would you please respond to direct question above? I see that
748:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
632:
And that is the point: a comparison shows that this is
409:
355:
Commission de
Toponymie source about Lac-des-Seize-Îles
153:
149:
145:
431:
article seems warranted. The assertion above that the
217:
410:
they have stripped down the article during this AFD
341:The Commission de Toponymie source about Lac Jumbo
545:, so perhaps this one should be converted into a
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
760:). No further edits should be made to this page.
384:Note: This discussion has been included in the
289:Note: This discussion has been included in the
549:, giving coordinates etc of all three Jumbos.
386:list of Geography-related deletion discussions
231:
8:
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
291:list of Quebec-related deletion discussions
272:, as discussed on the article's talk page.
383:
288:
541:There is another Jumbo Lake redlinked in
52:. Lack of sources to show notability per
695:I don't see your point. See the similar
543:List of lakes in Lincoln County, Montana
728:notable - it's a run of the mill lake
7:
597:stubs, the rest is ref bomb fluff!
24:
433:Commission de toponymie du Québec
96:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
742:03:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
713:20:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
680:12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
654:12:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
627:12:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
66:20:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
1:
602:18:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
584:13:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
559:12:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
533:07:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
519:07:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
487:23:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
469:23:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
445:12:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
422:05:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
398:00:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
375:21:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
318:20:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
303:19:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
282:19:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
260:19:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
268:to information merged into
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
777:
250:finds nothing available.
750:Please do not modify it.
588:Because if you actually
429:MacDonald River (Quebec)
270:MacDonald River (Quebec)
32:Please do not modify it.
351:"Sixteen Island Lake"
339:encyclopedia. Yes,
84:Articles for deletion
615:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
530:
547:Set index article
528:
400:
305:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
768:
694:
645:
592:the article and
575:
236:
235:
221:
173:
161:
143:
81:
34:
776:
775:
771:
770:
769:
767:
766:
765:
764:
758:deletion review
688:
652:
643:
582:
573:
457:useful somehow.
178:
169:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
774:
772:
763:
762:
718:
717:
716:
715:
683:
682:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
648:
637:
636:a bad article.
607:
606:
605:
604:
578:
564:
563:
562:
561:
536:
535:
529:Pontificalibus
521:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
336:
323:
322:
321:
320:
285:
284:
239:
238:
175:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
773:
761:
759:
755:
751:
746:
745:
744:
743:
739:
735:
731:
726:
722:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
692:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
668:
665:
664:
655:
651:
647:
646:
638:
635:
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
616:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
603:
600:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
576:
569:
566:
565:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
539:
538:
537:
534:
531:
525:
522:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
501:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
455:
448:
447:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:User:Aymatth2
404:
403:
402:
401:
399:
395:
391:
390:Coolabahapple
387:
382:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:User:Aymatth2
360:
356:
352:
347:
342:
337:
334:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:
304:
300:
296:
292:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
234:
230:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
184:
181:
180:Find sources:
176:
172:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
749:
747:
720:
719:
697:Lake Cacaoui
666:
641:
633:
593:
589:
571:
567:
523:
503:
451:
265:
244:Jumbo (film)
240:
228:
222:
214:
207:
201:
195:
189:
179:
166:
77:
49:
47:
31:
28:
594:investigate
568:Strong keep
205:free images
725:WP:GEOLAND
512:WP:REFBOMB
508:WP:GEOLAND
333:Jumbo Lake
120:Jumbo Lake
72:Jumbo Lake
54:WP:GEOLAND
754:talk page
295:Shellwood
248:wp:BEFORE
37:talk page
756:or in a
705:Aymatth2
691:Rockphed
672:Rockphed
619:Rockphed
599:Reywas92
551:Aymatth2
516:Reywas92
437:Aymatth2
274:Aymatth2
266:Redirect
164:View log
105:glossary
39:or in a
734:Epinoia
730:WP:MILL
644:P 1 9 9
590:examine
574:P 1 9 9
479:Doncram
461:Doncram
414:Doncram
367:Doncram
310:Doncram
252:Doncram
211:WP refs
199:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
721:Delete
701:WP:GNG
667:Delete
524:Delete
504:Delete
454:wp:RSN
183:Google
141:delete
58:RL0919
50:delete
346:DANFS
226:JSTOR
187:books
171:Stats
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
738:talk
709:talk
676:talk
623:talk
555:talk
483:talk
477:. --
465:talk
441:talk
418:talk
394:talk
371:talk
314:talk
299:talk
278:talk
256:talk
219:FENS
193:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
62:talk
634:not
233:TWL
162:– (
740:)
723:-
711:)
678:)
625:)
557:)
485:)
467:)
459:--
443:)
420:)
396:)
388:.
373:)
316:)
301:)
293:.
280:)
258:)
213:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
64:)
56:.
736:(
707:(
693::
689:@
674:(
650:✉
621:(
580:✉
553:(
481:(
463:(
439:(
416:(
392:(
369:(
312:(
297:(
276:(
254:(
237:)
229:·
223:·
215:·
208:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
185:(
177:(
174:)
167:·
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.