Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek

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 speedy keep per WP:SK # 1. Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)} Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek[edit]

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

I fail to see how this passes wp:GNG and wp:FORK, as the topic is the only 12 tributaries for a just 50-km long creek that is not famous for anything in particular. Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep disruptive nomination of an article that the nominator himself admits is long enough for featured list. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC) addendum: This also quite clearly meets Wikipedia's gazetteering functions as a list of notable geographical features. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I should mention that I wrote the said article, for transparency's sake. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep disruptive and pointy behaviour yet again from the bad faith nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how does your statement clarifies that this passes GNG. Nergaal (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how your nomination actually passes a cursory glance. GNG has already been established, time for you to stop disrupting Wikipedia, discouraging editors, and making points which aren't actually valid. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, let's encourage editors to work even more on pointless forks that nobody will ever open to read. Let's make sure that actually meaningful lists don't have the chance to receive any reviewer comments by continuously flooding FLC with such completely useless compiled data. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the presence of credible sources, not whether you find it useful or not. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary keep: There are six sources, none of which look unreliable to me. Enough to pass GNG, and this bulky list is not particularly suited for the parent article either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 4 September 2015 (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.