Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaver Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary)

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 close. Article was restored against the consensus formed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). I have redirected it once again. ✗plicit 00:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary)

[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)

No sourcing beyond database entries and maps (which are incorrect in the article body). Otherwise fails WP:GEOLAND. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously user Iseult doesn't understand the value of nor how to read a topographic map. The DeLorme atlas used as a reference here is based on the USGS topographic map of the area. The map shows the relationship of the stream course to other geographic features in the area: roads, other communities and the general topography of the area the stream flows through. How else do you describe a stream? The GNIS description page for the feature includes a small scale portion of the relevant USGS topo map. Vsmith (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the specific coordinates given in the article body, which are incorrect, as I've checked them on Google Maps and OpenStreetMap. I do appreciate your concern for my understanding, though. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 16:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The body of maps and atlases have an unlimited number of bodies of water and other physical features, but that is not the basis for notability: WP:GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." We just have existence of the subject with its location sourced to maps, which is insuffient coverage to establish notabilty. Streams' routes can indeed be described from a map, but it takes more to warrant an entry here. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good map shows the "existence" of the subject as well as its relationship to other places. A stream course (or route) on a map does indeed show its relationship to other geographic features which it passes. But it seems the rather ill-defined "notability" question arises. What makes a geographic feature "notable"? I suppose that if some politician or two-bit actor went skinny-dipping in the stream and the event was "covered" by the news folk ... it would be "notable" eh? Vsmith (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still saying that? No, that would not make the stream notable. What makes it notable is coverage about the subject itself. Reywas92^Talk 23:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in support of the original consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary), which also included this article. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Little Piney Creek (Missouri). Djflem (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE this has already been decided at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). This is a unnecessary 2nd nomination. The consensus at 1st- redirect appears to not have been carried out. Would suggest that be done and this AFD withdrawn.Djflem (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2022 (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.