Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celadon (river)

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 Result was keep. Nomination and all other delete !votes were withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celadon (river)[edit]

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

This is a tough one. While a google books search verifies that it is indeed an ancient river, I can find no significant coverage on it. That being said, most river articles we have on Wikipedia do not have significant coverage, but we keep them because they are encyclopaedic. But this article has been categorised (not by the creator) as a fictional river. I don't think we should have articles on fictional rivers that don't pass WP:GNG, but if someone can prove that the article is real, then I'd be willing to reconsider this nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, thanks for those who found references under different titles. Jenks24 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was sure this was deletable until I ran a Google search on the rather arcane name and came up with 4.4 million (!!!) hits. This vapid stub doesn't tell anybody much of anything, but whenever there's that much smoke, there is undoubtedly fire. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) "Celadon" was apparently also a CHINESE GLAZE. It's boggling how many hits there are, one could almost write a book on the varied uses. Who'da thunk it? The glaze and the pottery is certainly inclusion-worthy in WP terms, but that's not what this is about, obviously... Carrite (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here it is... Longquan celadon... Carrite (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for having a look, may I ask what you googled, because when I simply google "Celadon (river)" or "Celadon River" I'm only getting a few hundred hits on google? Jenks24 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ran "Celadon" first, then followed it up with "Celadon + history"... Carrite (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment. There's more under the alternative spelling Keladon.[1] Andrew Lang, in Homer and His Age (1906), has a brief discussion, in which he notes that another commentator identifies this with the "river or burn of Saint Isidore", wherever that may be, and that "Keladon has obviously the same sense as the Gaelic Altgarbh, 'the rough and brawling stream.'"[2]--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete || and redirect~~ - Having run the exact phrase "River Celadon," I feel reasonably secure in saying this is a mythical river from the Iliad of Homer, about which nothing more than a dictionary definition-type stub like this could be written. "Celadon" should actually redirect to Longquan celadon, it is the common name for that sort of green-glazed pottery. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I see there is already a nice article on Celadon... Carrite (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a couple of references, one of which establishes that this mythological (rather than fictional) location is mentioned by several classical authors. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: there is more under the alternatively name Celadus. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs considerable improvement to make it to Wikipedic standards as expected, but there are enough references to establish what is initially stated. Wikipedian2 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Lang reference is quite sufficient, along with the others. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My delete vote redacted above per improvements on this article. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also withdraw my delete !vote (the nomination statement). Thanks for the references provided by Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus and Arxiloxos. Just wondering if the article should be moved to either Celadus or Keladon, as that seems to be where most of the references are? (And, yes, I know this outside the scope of AfD.) Jenks24 (talk) 13:14, 21 April 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.