Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary)

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 to Little Piney Creek (Missouri). ✗plicit 10:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Contested WP:BLAR to its parent body of water, Little Piney Creek (Missouri) . Per WP:GEOLAND, natural features are notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". In this case, there appears to be no significant sourcing beyond databases and maps, which means it would fail GEOLAND.

Also going to bundle these under the same grounds:

♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hmm ... so a stream that is ~ 10 miles long, flows under three state highways and has a recreation area named for it is "not notable"? I suppose if some two bit actor or politician had fished or taken a swim in the streams waters - then it would be "notable"? Based on that you've got a lot of deleting to do ... as there are thousands of articles about geographic features that will fail your criteria. Vsmith (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as it should be. Not everything needs an article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "my" criteria, they're the community's. But yes! We do have a lot of pruning to do in many topic areas :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing found beyond geographical databases. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yes, indeed, there is a lot of clean up to do and it's quite unfortunate that someone mass-produced thousands of articles with so little sourcing. I'm baffled what state highways have anything to do with it: if there's not coverage about it, it shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Also confused where the comment about swimming in it comes from because the answer to that is no. Reywas92^Talk 22:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2017 or so there was an article creation drive and many of these "stream articles" were created in response most by another user and many expanded a bit from one or two lined stubs by me. State highway bridges typically are labelled with the name of the stream flowing beneath. Sorry about your confusion re the swimming bit 'twas an attempt a humor ... as well as Wiki reality about the magic that "celebrity connection" has for notability. Sourcing typically includes GNIS data as well as reference to USGS topo maps or a Delorme atlas which is derived from those maps. Seems the USGS should be a reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable, but it does not provide significant "information beyond statistics and coordinates," per what is stated in GEOLAND. On the other hand, there is significant information about Little Piney Creek in and of itself. For example, this 30-page USGS report about erosion on the creek banks is significant coverage. There's also this article that talks about fish stocks in the creek. (I've added them to that article - should have before.) I didn't find anything nearly as significant about the other streams, which is why I redirected them and not Little Piney Creek. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that you are mistaken, the referenced topographic map quadrangle provide abundant relevant information about the terrain, adjacent communities, road networks, etc. Or are you perhaps not aware of the value of those maps ...? Vsmith (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all basic statistical data. GEOLAND requires coverage that goes "beyond statistics and coordinates". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my comment? Have you never used or looked at a topographic map? Those maps provide detailed info about the stream and its surroundings. A good map is worth a thousand words of prose about a particular location. Vsmith (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, and since we've now reached the stage of the discussion where we pointlessly and rhetorically ask each other if we can read, let me ask you in return: have you read the sourcing section of our notability guideline for geographic features? I imagine not, because - and I'll quote it for you to save you the clicking - "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the guideline is rather absurd and apparently designed to eliminate a large number of potential valid articles and make sure the encyclopedia in quite incomplete - contrary to its founders intent. Vsmith (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect ALL to Little Piney Creek (Missouri) Djflem (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2022 (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.