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.
Speedy keep per
WP:NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." This valid stub at Brasstown Creek, officially recognized as a landform by
GNIS, has reliable sources for location, as well as name origin.–
Gilliam (
talk)
05:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd also like to cite a couple of things to remember.
WP:EXISTENCE: "Just because a subject exists in this world does not mean it is automatically notable." Just because a creek exists in the world, doesn't mean I will make a wikipedia page about it. Should I go make a wikipedia page about the oak tree in my yard? Taking what you said from your own mouth, Gilliam. "Named natural features are often notable..." That is true. They are often notable. However, this just honestly isn't. That refers me back to the
WP:EXISTENCE quote. Per the
WP:GNG as well, the article has no news articles or any significant coverage. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Citybuild122 (
talk •
contribs)
05:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd like you to consider something different. I believe a merge with
Brasstown, North Carolina is appropriate. According to the
notability guideline on geographic features under named natural places, it says it is often notable. Not always notable like you have said. Here is a quote from it: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." In this case, it is true. The author was only able to come up with three sentences, one of which is contains a claim that can't be supported. Therefore, I will refer you here:
Low sentence articlesCitybuild122 (
talk)
17:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge I agree with
Citybuild122's proposal. The information level is very questionable and certainly a strong case can be made for it not falling into the "often" mentioned in
WP:NGEO. That said, clearly geographical features are an area that consensus has a strong view in preserving information so long as minimal standards can be met. Merging it with the (itself very minimal) Brasstown, GeorgiaBrasstown, North Carolina stub would be a good solution in my view.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - This body of water is in at least three counties in two states. There are at least two different suggestions for merger above, even though the people making them seem to think they are agreeing, but they have picked different states. I'm not sure there is an appropriate merge target; I think it would only muddy the waters, so to speak. LadyofShalott02:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - My fault on that, sorry, just tagged the wrong one. I agree with North Carolina as a merge target
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. A search for sources is a bit confusing since there are two Brasstown Creeks and the other one has a few waterfalls. I do not support a merge.
SportingFlyertalk20:48, 7 April 2018 (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.
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.
Speedy keep per
WP:NGEO: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." This valid stub at Brasstown Creek, officially recognized as a landform by
GNIS, has reliable sources for location, as well as name origin.–
Gilliam (
talk)
05:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd also like to cite a couple of things to remember.
WP:EXISTENCE: "Just because a subject exists in this world does not mean it is automatically notable." Just because a creek exists in the world, doesn't mean I will make a wikipedia page about it. Should I go make a wikipedia page about the oak tree in my yard? Taking what you said from your own mouth, Gilliam. "Named natural features are often notable..." That is true. They are often notable. However, this just honestly isn't. That refers me back to the
WP:EXISTENCE quote. Per the
WP:GNG as well, the article has no news articles or any significant coverage. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Citybuild122 (
talk •
contribs)
05:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
I'd like you to consider something different. I believe a merge with
Brasstown, North Carolina is appropriate. According to the
notability guideline on geographic features under named natural places, it says it is often notable. Not always notable like you have said. Here is a quote from it: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." In this case, it is true. The author was only able to come up with three sentences, one of which is contains a claim that can't be supported. Therefore, I will refer you here:
Low sentence articlesCitybuild122 (
talk)
17:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge I agree with
Citybuild122's proposal. The information level is very questionable and certainly a strong case can be made for it not falling into the "often" mentioned in
WP:NGEO. That said, clearly geographical features are an area that consensus has a strong view in preserving information so long as minimal standards can be met. Merging it with the (itself very minimal) Brasstown, GeorgiaBrasstown, North Carolina stub would be a good solution in my view.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
21:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - This body of water is in at least three counties in two states. There are at least two different suggestions for merger above, even though the people making them seem to think they are agreeing, but they have picked different states. I'm not sure there is an appropriate merge target; I think it would only muddy the waters, so to speak. LadyofShalott02:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - My fault on that, sorry, just tagged the wrong one. I agree with North Carolina as a merge target
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. A search for sources is a bit confusing since there are two Brasstown Creeks and the other one has a few waterfalls. I do not support a merge.
SportingFlyertalk20:48, 7 April 2018 (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.