Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)

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.

Merge Proposal

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) -7&6=thirteen is indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.

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)~~ -7&6=thirteen is indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.[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)~~ -7&6=thirteen is indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.[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) -7&6=thirteen is indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed.[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]