Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevens Creek (Nebraska)

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. Missvain (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens Creek (Nebraska)[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)

This article may very well be a duplicate of Stevens Creek (Salt Creek). Article does not meet GNG or GEOLAND "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." BEFORE showed nothing that differentiates this from Stevens Creek (Salt Creek). Sources in the article are a GNIS database entry that may be for Stevens Creek (Salt Creek) and a PDF listing of names that does not mention the subject. Considered A10 but decided to bring to AfD for discussion (if any). // Timothy :: talk 09:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry everyone, I accidentally created this page as a duplicate of Stevens Creek (Salt Creek). I clicked through from the disambiguation page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens_Creek which unfortunately was formatted such to create a new page as opposed to referring to the old one. I fully approve of the page being deleted, I'll merge any relevant data from this page to Stevens Creek (Salt Creek). Also the second source, which is a list of names prepared by the local state historical society, does actually refer to the subject on page 29 of the PDF/listed page number 288, the document has been scanned from an older source and is not easily searchable. Thanks for catching this and sorry for the confusion. Linguistic Nerd (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic Nerd, no worries at all, its a easy mistake to make. I hope this isn't in anyway discouraging and thank you for your very gracious response. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-12 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2020 (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.