- 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. Michig ( talk) 07:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kent Creek (Washington) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed PROD, with the creator citing WP:GEOLAND. This stream is short, in a rural region, and has few (if any) sources that aren't in database form. GEOLAND states that "named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Clearly not the case here, where the only non-database source is a statewide etymology book. Sounder Bruce 06:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep This one's one of the most borderline geographic feature articles I can remember. You've got sources like [1] (not RS), a mention here about road construction in 1909 [2], another mention with railroad sidings [3], and atlases/topographic maps where it's clearly demarcated. There's also a road called "Kent Creek Road" with crime reports. A newspapers.com search (I don't have access) brings up 20 results for " "Kent Creek" Newport " which is the nearest town along with Dalkena. Those sources are definitely impeachable, but GEOLAND isn't that high of a standard and other sources might exist, hence the weak keep. SportingFlyer talk 04:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep This would just eke by the guidelines currently being discussed at WP Rivers by having a basin of approximately 13 sq. km., it is present in the National Hydrography Dataset which is where I calculated that from. Kmusser ( talk) 19:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as has significant natural features such as the large basin, enough sources to meet the low bar for WP:GEO, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: For sources, see This and this, and evidence of a cormorant colony [4]. There's enough information for a keepable stub. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 23:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was keep. Michig ( talk) 07:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Kent Creek (Washington) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed PROD, with the creator citing WP:GEOLAND. This stream is short, in a rural region, and has few (if any) sources that aren't in database form. GEOLAND states that "named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." Clearly not the case here, where the only non-database source is a statewide etymology book. Sounder Bruce 06:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 06:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep This one's one of the most borderline geographic feature articles I can remember. You've got sources like [1] (not RS), a mention here about road construction in 1909 [2], another mention with railroad sidings [3], and atlases/topographic maps where it's clearly demarcated. There's also a road called "Kent Creek Road" with crime reports. A newspapers.com search (I don't have access) brings up 20 results for " "Kent Creek" Newport " which is the nearest town along with Dalkena. Those sources are definitely impeachable, but GEOLAND isn't that high of a standard and other sources might exist, hence the weak keep. SportingFlyer talk 04:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep This would just eke by the guidelines currently being discussed at WP Rivers by having a basin of approximately 13 sq. km., it is present in the National Hydrography Dataset which is where I calculated that from. Kmusser ( talk) 19:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep as has significant natural features such as the large basin, enough sources to meet the low bar for WP:GEO, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: For sources, see This and this, and evidence of a cormorant colony [4]. There's enough information for a keepable stub. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 23:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- 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.