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 delete. I like this list as well, but I have to agree with those that say if fails LISTN. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of lakes named after people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG; I don't think it is useful either. This has been in CAT:NN for over 8 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think this nomination is useful as it utterly fails to understand that this is part of a set – see List of places named after people; List of countries named after people; List of eponymous roads in London; List of railway stations named after people, etc. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets the criteria for a list article. I love wonky lists like this. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:LISTN as it relates to WP:LISTPURP ie. "a valuable information source" and "Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia.", and whats with all the citation needed tags against each unrefed entry? why not just a "more refs needed" tag at the top of the article? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mainly because it must be a very small subset of all the lakes that would qualify for inclusion. It is not comparable with a list of countries because lakes tend to be a lot more numerous and (in most cases) less notable than countries.---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This list seems to have been invented by Wikipedia editors; do reliable sources treat namesake lakes as a distinct group? I'm unimpressed by the similar WP:OTHERSTUFF lists for the same reason; seems like these would make more sense as categories if we cover them at all. –dlthewave ☎ 21:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is easy to find sources which analyse the naming of lakes such as this or that. All you have to do is look but the nay-sayers don't seem to have done this. See WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nobody tabulates lakes this way. Andrew's first link merely discusses the naming of lakes in general, while the second is on a website of uncertain reliability. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a grouping by shared name not by any actual shared inherent characteristic of the things involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meaningless collection based on useless characteristic. Glendoremus (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glendoremus: I'm not sure what you mean by "meaningless collection" and "useless characteristic"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Beyond that, for those believing this meets LISTN, where are the reliable sources giving this concept significant coverage, as opposed to casual mentions on some website somewhere? Ravenswing 14:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have already voted above to keep this article, and wanted to add a bit more detailed comment. A consensus of editors at WP:SALAT agreed that "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." This certainly seems an encouragement for this sort of article. WP:SALAT also cautions against list that are too broad or too narrow, which this list doesn't seem to be. Finally, this list doesn't seem to fall into WP:NOT, in that it list notable lakes, along with the person the lake is named after. I actually added two lakes to the list, Lake Simcoe and Elvis Presley Lake. There are dozens of similar eponymous geographic lists on Wikipedia, such as List of islands named after people, List of railway stations named after people, and List of chess openings named after people. I'd hate to open the door for the deletion of these sorts of lists. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." is immediately followed by "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." –dlthewave ☎ 15:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Thank you for mentioning that. As you can see in my comment above, I have summarized the criteria identified at WP:SALAT used to "limit the size and topic of lists". Again, those criteria fall into two categories, first, lists that are "too general or too broad in scope", and second, lists that transgress WP:NOT. Which of those two categories does this list fall under? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep fulfills the criteria of WP:LISTN aiding in navigation and providing information. Serves our readers to keep. Lightburst (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fulfills the criteria of WP:LISTN. Have add template:
  This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by adding missing items with reliable sources.
  Djflem (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:LISTN; I see no evidence of reliable sources discussing this subject. I also fail to see what useful information this provides. This would be better suited as a category. TheAwesomeHwyh 14:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While poorly-sourced, there's nothing wrong with the list conceptually and it would probably be fine with some improvement. Julius177 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it fails WP:LISTN. Since no reliable sources seem to discuss the subject. It's also not valid IMO to just to keep it because it's part of a navigation thing. There's no guideline that lists in navigation boxes are exempt from being deleted if they aren't notable and plenty of them have been then. That seems to be the main argument of the keep voters though. That and "other stuff exists." --Adamant1 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails LISTN for lack of coverage of this subset of lakes, and also not an interesting or important categorization of items. Sandstein 06:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LC items 1-3, 6, 8, and 12. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2020 (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.