Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Minnesota streams

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 redirect. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minnesota streams[edit]

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

There is already a List of rivers of Minnesota, having a second list is a complete waste of effort and is just a list of non-notable streams and creeks. The list ~~was presumably copied~~ is too close to USGS, you can generate a similar list with the appropriate query Link MadCow257 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Topic is redundant with List of rivers of Minnesota, which should be the redirect topic. (Wikipedia shouldn't have two articles about the same topic.) Some content may deserve to be merged there or to articles about individual rivers and lakes to (or from, in the case of some lakes) which the smaller streams flow. Note that the USGS list output may be more authoritative than what's previously been used to assemble the existing list article and other articles about individual rivers. --Orlady (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not surprising that Minnesota has lots of streams, considering that its name comes from the Dakota word for water and is also famous for its 10,000 lakes. However most of them are never going to have an article here and a list of them seems more like material for an atlas than an encyclopedia. BigJim707 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge: don't need every stream, but relevant to the article about rivers. Dzlife (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 08:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What will be merged? A sentence that says: "Each river is feed by many streams."? I don't see a place for the names of minor streams within a general interest encyclopedia at all. That sounds more like Google Earth. BigJim707 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Articles about rivers -- and lists of rivers -- often include lists of tributaries, generally in the order in which they enter the main stream. This list of streams includes an unhelpful alphabetized list (including some names that appear several times), but it also lists some streams by the river system to which they belong. To the extent that this second list includes information not in List of rivers of Minnesota and/or the articles about the individual Minnesota rivers (my limited checking indicates that it does include some such information), there is some content that would enhance those other articles. --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a list of names of non-notable streams. WP is not a directory. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2011 (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.