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.
Delete No you were right in the first place! Merely having a name is not automatic notability –
WP:GEOLAND#3 applies, and knowing where the name came from is not significant enough coverage.
Reywas92Talk01:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Please reconsider your vote to delete this encyclopedic entry. The banks of Catahoula Creek were home to the Choctaw long before Europeans arrived. The Hancock County Historical Society mentions this on their website. [1]DavidDelaune (
talk)
02:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
References
^Hancock County Historical Society.
"Center-Caesar". Hancock County Historical Society. Retrieved 2020-03-27.
Strong Keep Catahoula Creek is a natural waterway with a long established history: its name can be traced back to the Native American
Choctaw people of the southeastern US. Per
WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." –
Gilliam (
talk)
01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
My god, what crock! That's merely the etymology of the word "Catahoula", same as
Catahoula Parish, Louisiana and
Catahoula Leopard Dog – you don't know a damn thing about this little creek's history!
Keep.
This book, which features Catahoula Creek in its study of darters, says Heins & Clemmer (1975) gave a general description of Catahoula Creek. I think they are referring to
this paper which does indeed spend a few paragraphs describing the creek. It is also central to their study, which in itself gives the creek notability. Amongst other things, they state that the creek is the main tributary of the
Jourdan River, which, while it does not yet have an article, is redlinked from six different articles. This is clearly an area where Wikipedia needs to expand its coverage, not remove it. The page can clearly be expanded into a few paragraphs at least, and if still small, might be merged into a future Jourdan River article.
SpinningSpark02:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article is a coatrack of factoids tangentially related to the subject. Majority of sources cover scientific studies of various species in the creek, they're not about the creek itself. Likewise the bit about the Center settlement is about a place that happened to be along the creek. –
dlthewave☎16:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Arguing that research into fish in a river is not about the river is stretching a point too far. But even without that, and even without the passage on Center, we are still left with more than nothing.
SpinningSpark16:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
taking this deletion argument (a bit) further we could suggest that most/all sources on any town/city are about the people/organisations/buildings/features in the said town/city and not about the town/city itself.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
21:29, 28 March 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.
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.
Delete No you were right in the first place! Merely having a name is not automatic notability –
WP:GEOLAND#3 applies, and knowing where the name came from is not significant enough coverage.
Reywas92Talk01:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Please reconsider your vote to delete this encyclopedic entry. The banks of Catahoula Creek were home to the Choctaw long before Europeans arrived. The Hancock County Historical Society mentions this on their website. [1]DavidDelaune (
talk)
02:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
References
^Hancock County Historical Society.
"Center-Caesar". Hancock County Historical Society. Retrieved 2020-03-27.
Strong Keep Catahoula Creek is a natural waterway with a long established history: its name can be traced back to the Native American
Choctaw people of the southeastern US. Per
WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." –
Gilliam (
talk)
01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
My god, what crock! That's merely the etymology of the word "Catahoula", same as
Catahoula Parish, Louisiana and
Catahoula Leopard Dog – you don't know a damn thing about this little creek's history!
Keep.
This book, which features Catahoula Creek in its study of darters, says Heins & Clemmer (1975) gave a general description of Catahoula Creek. I think they are referring to
this paper which does indeed spend a few paragraphs describing the creek. It is also central to their study, which in itself gives the creek notability. Amongst other things, they state that the creek is the main tributary of the
Jourdan River, which, while it does not yet have an article, is redlinked from six different articles. This is clearly an area where Wikipedia needs to expand its coverage, not remove it. The page can clearly be expanded into a few paragraphs at least, and if still small, might be merged into a future Jourdan River article.
SpinningSpark02:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Article is a coatrack of factoids tangentially related to the subject. Majority of sources cover scientific studies of various species in the creek, they're not about the creek itself. Likewise the bit about the Center settlement is about a place that happened to be along the creek. –
dlthewave☎16:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Arguing that research into fish in a river is not about the river is stretching a point too far. But even without that, and even without the passage on Center, we are still left with more than nothing.
SpinningSpark16:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)reply
taking this deletion argument (a bit) further we could suggest that most/all sources on any town/city are about the people/organisations/buildings/features in the said town/city and not about the town/city itself.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
21:29, 28 March 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.