Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormy Lake (Canada)

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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stormy Lake (Canada)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Set index article with just one blue link. The red links are not linked anywhere else on Wikipedia. The article was recently deprodded by DGG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason DGG stated when he removed the PROD: "All of them are potential articles, all probably notable". -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most geographic features are notable -- technically we might delete as unused disambiguation, but I think that's valuing form over substance. If articles are possible and there's no advertising or the like, I do;t see the point of deletion. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The geographic features themselves are notable, as long as the author gives some information about the other formations that are not currently linked anywhere else, I vote to keep. AdityaBahl (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC) _{Striking !vote of blocked sock TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two other lakes are mentioned on Wikipedia so it's a useful page per WP:DABMENTION. One of them is in Wisconsin, however, so I've had to rename the page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially after the rename and expansion by Tavix, per WP:DABMENTION. Potentially useful and ultimately harmless dab page. Antepenultimate (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: valid and useful dab page. PamD 09:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION. The article on Haliburton County should have had a link to the associated redlink, but it had been mislinked to Stormy Lake. Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See no reason to delete. As other editors have stated, MOS:DABMENTION appears to apply. CBS527^Talk 13:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think there's a lot of lake pages like this that I haven't had a chance to browse through. Arrowhead Lake (Ontario) is another example of a page mentioning four lakes. WP:GEOLAND says that any named physical feature is notable, "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Considering that there are hundreds (thousands?) of named lakes in Ontario, I don't believe most of these meet the notability criteria, but I am not familiar enough with the individual bodies of water. --NoGhost (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a disambiguation page. It is not a regular article. It provides supporting service to readers and potential editors looking for an article on any one of the "Stormy Lake"s in Canada. Disambiguation pages are cheap, like redirects, should be created freely. And it is silly to be having a big discussion about it. --do ncr am 23:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.