Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Clive 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 delete. A redirect to Patten River can be created if desired through normal editing processes, but there is consensus here that this article does not meet the notability requirements for geographic features. Hog Farm _Talk 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Clive River[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)

Likely an original research. References provided do not show a river named as such, neither the measures reported on the page. Natural Resources Canada official directory of geographical names shows no such name. Webfil (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources to support this river exists. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, this river is explicitly named as an "area covered" in this topographical map — but it's still a very minor river at best, and I can't find any sources that would render it notable. It's not our role to maintain an article about every river on earth that happens to appear on a map — our role is to keep articles about rivers that can be verified by written sources as having some credible claim of significance, not just every river that exists on earth. Creator is also a problematic editor who has a longstanding pattern of disregarding Wikipedia practice in a lot of ways — he genuinely seems to think we need or want an article about every single body of water in his geographic region of interest, and his article creation binges virtually always need somebody to come through and do a massive cleanup job afterward for bad structure and grammar and nonexistent categories — and while that's not a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does raise questions about his competence and his willingness to collaborate and listen. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - All rivers should have a Wikipedia article. Geographically, it is easy for anyone to find information on the Internet that supports the information posted on WP. This article informs readers well. The information contained is a good description of the watercourse. A lot of time is spent by editors designing good geographic articles on WP. Congratulations to those who apply themselves to writing well.Veillg1 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veillg1: What particular parts of WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND are supported? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, all rivers should not have a Wikipedia article. There are literally millions of rivers in the world, and they aren't all of any significant public interest — the bar for having an article about a river is that there's coverage about the river to show that it's significant, not just that the river technically exists. (And that goes especially when you're trying to support it with sources that don't even properly verify its existence in the first place, such as directories that don't name it and maps that don't label it.) We're an encyclopedia, not a gazetteer, and there are rules to establish what's notable enough for an article and what isn't. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is easy for anyone to find information on the Internet that supports the information posted on WP As you've been repeatedly told by various editors, it's not for the reader to search the internet to verify what you have written. As per WP:BURDEN, it's for you to verify what you have written with references from reliable sources.--John B123 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Patten River~~ Delete- (change to delete after reading later comments about the Patten -Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)) I usually support the keeping of river articles, but this needs deleting/redirecting as per Bearcat. I agree that many of these articles are poorly written and sourced, which isn't a reason for deletion - but this one is barely on the map, let alone enough sources for a decent article.-Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, even Patten River isn't referenced to any sources that actually support its existence either, so I can't support a redirect to an article that's also potential deletion bait. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patten River I'd support keeping if there were even a single reliable source supporting the name, but the only reference provided does not contain any entry for a river with this name. older ≠ wiser 14:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Patten River, the only reference is a dead link (and was dead 4 years before the article was written[1]) The most recent archived copy (Jan 2013[2]) doesn't mention the Patten River. --John B123 (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something is not inherently notable because it exists, otherwise who wants to write my biography here on Wikipedia? For a river to be notable it should have multiple intellectually independent sources describing it in a significant detail and providing reasons for why it is different than any of the other millions of rivers in the world. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fails WP:N --ARose Wolf 18:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until you bother to look for some relevant and alive sources, you can improve this article and make it reliable. For now it does not seem notable, sorry. UpcomingPurse^TalkToMe 04:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. No, not every fork and creek is notable. It has to be shown by at least two reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above arguments, particularly SIGCOV and MILL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 31 January 2021 (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.