Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Travel and Tourism: Hotels / Vacations Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hotels (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Vacations.

Merge Proposal

MERGE

There seems to be a very thin consensus to merge to this article. Crucial here was the argument from Sirfurboy et al. that there's just barely too little significant coverage for this company to have its own article, and the current Bent's Camp Resort article covers a lot of material about non-notable individuals and events as a result. This material would not survive a merge, and the remainder would not create too much of an issue being merged here. This sentiment was also mirrored in the AfD close, which suggested a merge discussion and a potential second AfD visit should that fail. I want to note one more thing: I understand that a lot of this discussion already happened elsewhere, but please link to those arguments rather than just assuming the reader is familiar with them. The latter resulted in a lot of "delete per [policy]" or "keep per [X]'s sources" style comments here, and that costs valuable editor time. If there's a good summary to be referenced, please make it easy to find. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose merging Bent's Camp Resort into Mamie Lake (Wisconsin). This AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort arrived at no consensus, but indicated a merge proposal was the best way to take this issue forward. Bent's Camp Resort is a business (a resort) at the lake. The AfD discovery found insufficient sources to meet WP:NCORP for a notable business, but equally enough information that it could considerably add to the Mamie Lake article, which is currently suffering for lack of attention, and very short. There is mergeable content, and sources that could add detail, both about Bent's Camp and other history of the Mamie Lake area and resorts. A merge would benefit the reader in bringing together information in one place in a suitable article, rather than in two (or more) stubs. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Lightburst, AndyTheGrump, TarnishedPath, Qwirkle, Brandon, Bgsu98, Carrite, Bruxton, Mztourist, Panian513, Cunard, HighKing, PARAKANYAA, LibStar, JoelleJay, Serial Number 54129, and Frank Anchor:~~ - Pinging all <AfD participants.

@Lightburst, AndyTheGrump, TarnishedPath, Qwirkle, Brandon, Bgsu98, Carrite, Bruxton, Mztourist, Panian513, Cunard, HighKing, PARAKANYAA, LibStar, JoelleJay, Serial Number 54129, and Frank Anchor: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Sirfurboy, sorry to bring the news, but none of us got those pings I'm afraid, as they need to be attached to a signature to work. Thanks for this discussion though. I agree with merge and note that even this so-called parent article reminds me very much of one of Lightburst's greatest efforts, that of the ill-famed Bachelor Lake (he didn't write the article, but he managed to bludgeon the AfD back to the Stone Age before moving into complete clusterfuck territory. SNAFU, my dear fellow. Now about those pings... SerialNumber54129 12:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my error. I have re-issued the pings with signature. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Sirfurboy: and @Serial Number 54129: I thought we hugged it out? Maybe not quite yet? lol Lightburst (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Makes sense to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the proviso that material concerning Brent's Camp the organisation would need to be reduced in any resulting merge, to only what is significant in the context of the merge location, as the organisation clearly fails WP:NORG. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a selective merge per nom. I think a short paragraph at the end of the "background" section is sufficient. Frank Anchor 13:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose well referenced article on a notable subject. WP:Not paper Indeed the hostile and [[wp}civilityy|uncivil]] ad hominem shows your cards and motives. 14:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thirteen, sorry, but where in the nom is Sifurboy hostile or ad hominal, it seems a pretty reasonable nomination statement to me (although I understand being on the opposite side of it, of course). Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe how Brent's Camp Resort meets WP:NORG? TarnishedPath^talk 14:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article speaks for itself. Can you describe how it doesn't? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the AFD, particularly the source analysis conducted by @Sirfurboy. TarnishedPath^talk 14:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least User:Serial_Number_54129 I agree that Sirfurboy🏄 Apparently User:Serial_Number_54129 does notr agree that Sirfurboy🏄 transgressed the basic WP:AGF standard that underlies Wikipedia. And Surfurboy's argument is fallacious. I think it is clear that the behavior is wrong and needs to be called out for what it is. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Surely I said something almost the exact opposite?! SerialNumber54129 15:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The camp is notable on its own and has multiple RS. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to User:Sirfurboy. I was wrong. The Ad hominem attacks are here:

...note that even this so-called parent article reminds me very much of one of Lightburst's greatest efforts, that of the ill-famed Bachelor Lake (he didn't write the article, but he managed to bludgeon the AfD back to the Stone Age before moving into complete clusterfuck territory. SNAFU, my dear fellow. Now about those pings... SerialNumber54129 12:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I misread and misattributed the statement. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Additional sources were added to the article that are entirely about the location spanning years (and there is coverage going back decades discussing the resort as a seminal part of Wisconsin travel history. Those additional sources were also not discussed in the AfD and were thus not considered by those involved in the discussion. Hopefully this discussion won't involve bludgeoning from members of the off-wiki harassment group like in the prior ANI event. Silver seren^C 21:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources have been added that were not discussed at AfD? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A significant amount of those added after the start of the discussion. You were the one that made the initial charts, after all. I've also gone ahead and added several more sources just now, actually. Silver seren^C 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the article was discussed at AfD. So the only new articles are the three you just added. This isn't AfD, it is a merge discussion, so I will just say that the local paper coverage of the restaurant is of a form already considered. The local coverage of new owners of a local business was also of a form that was discussed, but the point I made at AfD when I moved to merge was that there is enough coverage about the resort that it should be discussed on Wikipedia, even if the business itself does not meet CORPDEPTH. Moreover, as per my rationale above, a reader is better served if they have the information in one place. The resort is an old one at Mamie Lake, and it, along with some other information uncovered at AfD, should be mentioned at the lake article. There is not the depth of information required for a an article about a notable business. There is some information that would be properly curated and contextualised within the article about the lake on which this sits. A merge is a good editorial decision in this case per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple news articles spanning years with significant coverage of the location. And the coverage is about the resort, the restaurant, and the location as a campground. It's why WP:NCORP doesn't fit, as this isn't an LLC. Selling cabin locations or even food isn't the same thing as selling a product. There's basically no instances where such a thing would have an independent article, whereas actual products can per WP:PRODUCT. Which is why many parts of the guideline don't apply and also why the guideline emphasizes the WP:GNG as the primary criteria, which this subject meets from significant coverage across decades going back to the early 1900s. Silver seren^C 23:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sentences of the lead tell us clearly what the scope of the article is:

"Bent's Camp Resort is a resort in Northern Wisconsin in Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin. The resort has 12 cabins and it is located on the south shore of Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)".

It's clear that WP:NORG, which doesn't limit itself to LLCs, is the applicable notability guideline by which to judge the article. TarnishedPath^talk 02:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. This particular resort appears to have been discussed enough in reliable sources—for its unusual rusticity, as a key example in the struggle between resort owners and owners of individual summer homes—to justify an independent article (although this article should also be expanded and should cover that history in greater detail than the resort article). Here from the unnameable site after checking the AfD and noting that some of the sources found by Carrite—who I believe had his attention drawn to the article and the AfD by its mention at the unnameable site—have still not been added to the resort article. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bent's Camp Resort does not meet GNG/WP:CORP criteria for establishing notability, a merge like this is the best option. Saying that it is "mentioned" in "news articles" or "reliable sources" or that it has existed "for decades", or that NCORP doesn't apply, etc, is a just a load of word salad when it comes to evaluating the article against the appropriate criteria (i.e. NCORP where there are many boxes to tick, all of which must be ticked, and by mentioning one or two boxes and ignoring others that haven't been ticked is either an unfamiliarity with the criteria or wilful gaslighting). HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support non-notable Bent's resort merged into this article. I'd also echo the sentiments above that it should be a selective merge with only the most relevant information as to how the resort is connected to this lake. For instance, in this article, we don't need to know the owner/operators of the resort, as they are non-notable, or any of the events held at the resort, because they are non-notable as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thank you for the ping. The article has multiple reliable sources over a long period of time and our guidelines tell us to keep the article. I do not believe that it serves our readers to merge or redirect. Bruxton (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (Pinged) The resort doesn't meet NCORP, but some information could be relevant to this article. Seems very reasonable. JoelleJay (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. The sources I presented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort allow the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. There is enough information to support a standalone article. A merge would result in either undue weight in the target article or in the loss of sourced encyclopedic content. Bent's Camp Resort is longer than Mamie Lake (Wisconsin).
My first choice is a standalone article. My second choice is a merge of Bent's Camp Resort to Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) if the consensus is that the resort is not notable. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding the striking of 7&6=thirteen's comments, I created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing to ask whether Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#7&6=thirteen topic banned applies to merge discussions. So far, three arbitrators have responded. One arbitrator said participating in merge discussions is a violation of the topic ban, while two said it is not a violation. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deemed to be separate. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Cunard's excellent source analysis at the AfD. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a re-run of the AfD. The question is a WP:PAGEDECIDE one. The subject will remain on Wikipedia whether it is merged or not. The question is about the context in which it is placed, and how best to present the information to readers. Note that the AfD close specifically suggested a merge discussion be considered. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the level of detail included in Bent's Camp Resort would clearly be WP:UNDUE for the Mamie Lake article. Clearly, enough coverage exists to facilitate a stand-alone article in this case. If such sourcing exists for other landmarks around Mamie Lake, then stand-alone articles could possibly be created for them as well. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger

The consensus was not to MERGE Bent's Camp Resort into Mamie Lake (Wisconsin). 7 vs. 6 is a majority. Do the math. And somebody merged it and removed all the references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are eight supports. You need to count the nom. and you perhaps missed SN’s !vote. Not that it is a vote. The close has a rationale. As regards the merge, you will note that I first copied everything to the target page, and then went through the text and explained each additional edit. Thus the information may easily be reverted into the target, provided there is a decent rationale that explains why you would be reverting my edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect such rationale to have consensus behind it. TarnishedPath^talk 23:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant individual removals for undue information could be individually reverted, as I ensured all exist in this page's history. I didn't mean to suggest the whole merge be reverted, which would indeed need a new consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closer's rationale needs to be greatly amended. "I want to note one more thing: I understand that a lot of this discussion already happened elsewhere, but please link to those arguments rather than just assuming the reader is familiar with them." Such commentary can never be linked on-site because of some ridiculous RfC that established Wikipediocracy "discussion" shouldn't be linked on-site because that would be "outing". Nevermind the constant doxing, threatening, harassing, insulting, disgusting "commentary" from the complete cowards of Wikipediocracy, who never have the guts to do it on-site. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Homeostasis07, I think the closer was referring to the previous AFD discussion that occured at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent's Camp Resort. TarnishedPath^talk 01:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussion was one of the first links provided by the nom. Unless you're saying that the closer didn't skim that discussion, so disregarded any mention of previous commentary in their close rationale? That's certainly an interesting point. @Licks-rocks: Can you clarify what you meant? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is that Lisa was stating taht each time someone referenced an argument elsewhere they should link to it. See the sub-thread under Silverseren's !vote as an example.

Ps, I wouldn't expect a speedy response from Lisa as her talk indicates that she's on a wikibreak. TarnishedPath^talk 01:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the section replying to Silverseren discusses sources discussed at AfD and sources in the article, but does not paste links to any of the sources discussed into the discussion itself. This was my failing as I discussed 3 of them without actually linking the 3 that had been added that had not been previously discussed. The closer can hardl be expected to cross reference the tables in the AfD with the references in the article to find which three I was talking about. I'll take note of the closer's comments on that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this needs an uninvolved admin. I (along with others) do not see consensus Lightburst (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see some clarification has been requested here, so I'll provide it. First of all, I was unaware of any WPO discussion (though I am certainly aware of WPO.), my comment referenced above referred, as tarnishedpath correctly surmised, to the earlier AfD discussion, which was quite extensive and contained a lot of useful material, which could have been linked to and mentioned directly in this discussion. Sentences like "per [X]'s excellent commentary at AfD" leave me having to read every comment X has made in the prior AfD discussion, which wastes a ton of time. While I did skim that discussion, I'm very much trying to close this discussion. To give some non-generalised examples from the actual discussion: a comment like for example "support, the camp is notable on its own and has multiple RS" gives me very little to go on as to what sources you think prove notability. Similar but opposite things can be said of "Support. (Pinged) The resort doesn't meet NCORP, but some information could be relevant to this article.". As for consensus, a consensus on wikipedia is not a vote, I went by the strenght of the arguments, and concluded that the merge side's were just slightly stronger. To be specific, the source analysis just wasn't really countered in a meaningful way. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even IF true that the camp is notable on its own, merging was still a good idea. If and when a long and well-referenced article on the resort is developed, this can become a SPINOFF. Given the length of the lake and camp articles, and the camp being part of the lake, its shores and beaches, there is no justification to SPINOUT. gidonb (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Sir MemeGod  22:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a controversial close @Licks-rocks: and we have guidelines - controversial close needs an experienced uninvolved admin closure. The fact that you stepped into this close call is wrong and I ask you to revert and wait for an experience uninvolved administrator. This is a no-consensus by my reading and several other editors above think the same. Please revert Lightburst (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, admins are not required to close merge discussions, because they do not require use of admin tools. As I explained at ANI, I requested uninvolved close of this because it was controversial, and Licks-rocks was the uninvolved closer who stepped up. That is the correct process, duly followed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a misunderstanding and as I have said, for some reason you have been pushing to have this 100 year old camp off the project. I have no idea what your motivation is. This is very controversial because of off-wiki involvement, and an arb complaint against one of the voters, and then a close-call numerically. A discussion started immediately after the close, again letting you know this close was controversial. Can't believe I have to explain this to you but I think an experienced admin is needed. Lightburst (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I haven't been pushing to have it off the project. I said at AfD there should be mention of the camp on Wikipedia. My !vote was to merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you pointed out @Sirfurboy: admin tools are not needed to conduct merges. The desire for an admin close is laid out at WP:MERGECLOSE. In a case that involves off-site harassment to this extent, an admin close is surely preferable. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was listed under regular closes, not admin closes, so no request for an admin closure was made in this case. --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly should've been. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The page is about a campsite on a lake. That is not controversial. No one made any suggestion (as you are now doing) that there was any kind of canvassing. We have not been plagued with sock accounts. This is not controversial, it is merely contested. You made an accusation now that there was offsite canvassing, but that has been denied by editors in a position to know. I see no evidence that there was any, but if there had been, the time to mention that would have been before the close. The correct process was followed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst you need to dial back your WP:ABF with assumptions of other editors having any motivations beyond adhering to WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 22:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article to Vilas County, Wisconsin?

Vilas County, Wisconsin looks like a better home for this small body of water. It would fit cleanly as a significant subsection, where here it is a likely to be a permanent geo stub with a factoid about a random small business. 12.75.41.48 (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]