Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Creek

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. Nearly unanimous support for that result. Orlady (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Creek[edit]

Margaret Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This creek fails WP:N/WP:GNG. Zero substantial gNews archive or gBooks hits. Only a few even mention the creek, let alone discuss it. I had proded the article, but the prod was removed with the comment, "geographical features are topics that encyclopedias cover." I don't disagree, but of course, the geographical feature must still meet WP:N. Novaseminary (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So every creek in the world is automatically kept? Regardless of whether it received coverage? what makes WP:GNG not apply to creeks? Novaseminary (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It has recieved widspread coverage in books. In future consider google book searching....♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Thanks for the tip... It has received wide coverage (800+ mentions in gBooks, though not all are about this creek, and many are non-RSs). But is any of it significant enough for GNG purposes? Establishing a creek exists is not the same as establishing it is notable, unless existing creeks are inherently notable. Novaseminary (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is widespread consensus that geographical features are "inherently notable". I personally hate that term but the fact is that virtually any verifiable geographical feature on the planet providing it has a few sources to verify it are always accepted on wikipedia and considered encyclopedic. There have been numerous scientific research papers into this creek, not to mention the mention in many historical books on the county. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be some limit, though. There wouldn't be widespread consensus to include the large rock in my neighbor's yard, or the drainage ditch/creek. Is there a guideline that lays this out? As for sources, there are no scientific articles dealing with this creek cited in the article. There are sources that use the creek as a reference point (as one would a street... and not all streets meet N), but none that offer substantial coverage about the creek. Novaseminary (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on sources. Sources are what dictate notability not size of geographical feature. If multiple reliable publications think a small rock is worthy of coverage and writing about then so does wikipedia.Naturally most things like small rocks and most streets in towns do not meet notabililty requirements. But rivers certainly are generally notable, however small. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with that, for the most part. But to qualify, wouldn't the sources have to "address the subject directly in detail" per WP:GNG? None of the sources cited, nor any I can find, meet this prong of GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per others - as a geographical feature it's inherently notable, I think. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But which sources "address the subject directly in detail"? Novaseminary (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There does appear to be enough coverage from multiple sources to demonstrate passing WP:GNG. While there doesn't seem to be a single extremely in-depth piece, ie a book entitled Margaret Creek, WP:GNG does allow topics with relatively less coverage as long as it comes from multiple sources independent of each other. WP:GNG states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." In this case, the number of sources does compensate for the lack of a single very in-depth source per WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly stated and referenced that this is a major tributary of the Hocking River (restated in Athens County Comprehensive Land Use Plan)[1] (downloaded .pdf - FinalAugust2010.pdf, page 14); Lake Snowden[2] is a 136 acre lake formed by damming one of the tributaries of Margaret Creek. Opbeith (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Zero substantial gNews archive or gBooks hits" - but why not check out a search engine or two before starting this hare? Opbeith (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other than noting its existence as a tributary and using it as a locational reference point (which may be enough) there is no in-depth coverage of the creek even in those sources. And isn't the article as it now stands more about the Margaret Creek Conservancy District, (or really the Hocking River watershed); that is the areas surrounding the creek, than about the creek itself? Why not rename the article Margaret Creek Conservancy District? Novaseminary (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article is about the river. I strongly suggest you withdraw your nomination as this doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The basis of the original forcefully argued nomination was that Margaret Creek had insufficient claim to notability to justify an article, in that there was nothing to distinguish it as being more than a drainage ditch or the equivalent of XXa smallXX sorry, in fact it was a large rock. Opbeith (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Existing geographic feature. Article has good references and a good amount of information for a starter on a creek.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article includes plenty of reliable sources covering the creek. Rlendog (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is about one of four major watersheds in Athens County, Ohio and the surrounding area other than the Hocking River. I would not do an article about, say, Sugar Creek, another tributary to the Hocking, because it's about 10% of the size of the Margaret Creek watershed, but Margaret Creek is substantial. jaknouse (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well-referenced article on an encyclopedic topic (geographic features) that passes WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:42, 2 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Margaret_Creek&oldid=1138053205"