Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourd Creek (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gourd Creek

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Gourd Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has previously been redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourd Creek and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). It has recently been restored with one change: the addition of this source here. The issue with this source is that it never talks about Gourd Creek, even in passing , and that the extrapolation of the relation of this Gourd Creek Cave to the creek is, strictly speaking, WP:OR.

post-nom edit There is now a second additional source here but only with passing mentions and thus irrelevant for determining notability. As I commented below, , the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention.

As these changes are irrelevant, we return to the reasoning given in the previous AfDs to redirect this page; I'd like to quote, additionally, WP:GEONATURAL: for example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Iseult Δx talk to me 17:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all editors involved in the previous two AfDs per WP:APPNOTE: @Reywas92, JalenBarks, Djflem, Premeditated Chaos, Vsmith, and Oaktree b: Iseult Δx talk to me 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I reverted the redirect because it was done without respect to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia: information. Specifically, the redirect was not accompanied with the corresponding merge of information, resulting in a piece of unreferenced info in the target article. I expanded it beyond information available except name and location. The accusation in OR is plain ridiculous, but I added a ref with no less than from Smithsonian, which directly link the creek and the cave --Altenmann >talk 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A malformed redirect does not call for overturning an AfD. The proper thing to do is to then add references to the target article. I understand that this article has, for some reason, been a flashpoint. Now, the Smithsonian ref added after I nominated this page. As it happens, it directs to a pdf download which is malformed on my system; could you quote the relevant parts? I'll strike the OR if proved. Iseult Δx talk to me 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug>A ridiculous anti-AGF statement; buy yourself a better system I could have said, but whatever. The work is by Gerard Fowke (1855-1933), so it is in public domain. I will upload it to commons. --Altenmann >talk 18:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<hah>, it was already there: File:Bulletin_(IA_bulletin761922smit).pdf. --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A malformed redirect does call for the revert of a sloppy edit. Improper edits are reverted all the time. is to then add references, well, I made a different decision and implemented it. --Altenmann >talk 18:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! For reference, the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention. I've struck the OR mention and have changed my nomination statement.
Regarding your other comments, I'm intrigued that you said that you could have made a flippant remark and chose to do it anyways. I don't see where I'm not AGF-ing, and the system comment isn't productive. In re the reversion, given that the consensus at AfD was to redirect the page, categorizing the redirect as an improper edit certainly is something. I appreciate your fait accompli, and that, I suppose, is what this discussion is for. Iseult Δx talk to me 19:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your "mention in passing" judgement. First, the Smithsonian source gives a number of important details about the creek, so you cannot call it simply "mention". Of course, the main subject is not the creek. Second, the description of the notable things found by the river is certainly relevant information. Certainly we will not write a separate article for each cairn found there, so IMO this page is a natural place to describe them; just look at Mississippi_River#Native_Americans. --Altenmann >talk 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I had a researcher's fun digging for information about this "Nothing Gulch" and realize that my position may be biased by a kind of "ownership feeling", so I am recusing from further discussion here per WP:COI :-) --Altenmann >talk 20:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what you call important I call routine. But I trust the community to have a healthy discussion about this and for the community to abide by the consensus found here. Iseult Δx talk to me 20:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Those bits should be all that is required for "notability". Now, with the archeological bits discussed above it has even more notability. Is Wiki running out of room? Or do we need some celebrity to go skinny-dipping in it ... Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Per WP:NGEO: A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply. In other words, maps contribute nothing to notability. I see no reason that passing beneath a US highway (or any other kind) should have any bearing on notability, and certainly no such exception is made in the NGEO guideline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep: I suppose with the archeological items, it lends to notability... but honestly if the cave is on the NRHP, that would have more sourcing than this creek and is likely enough for an article about the site. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, obviously. I don't want to delete the information, and I resent the implication that my original redirect was in any way malformed or in opposition to Wikipedia's purpose. I do think that a few passing mentions do not demonstrate the kind of notability that demands the creek have its own article. Whether we merge it back up to Little Piney Creek (Missouri) or to an as-yet-created Gourd Creek Cave article, I don't care. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak only in the sense that this barely gets above WP:GEOFEAT, one of our more permissible guidelines - but it does clear that bar without touching. SportingFlyer T·C 06:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or restore redirect? I'll note that while the "keep" !votes are more numerous, the rationales are for the most part not based on specific policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like a no consensus, but given the prior AfDs a consensus would help
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:38, 21 March 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gourd_Creek_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1282719980"