Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saleyards Creek

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Black Kite 18:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saleyards Creek

Saleyards Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is no WP policy that says all creeks are inherently notable, in any case this one is actually a stormwater drain, and we definitely don't have articles for all of these in the world. so applying WP:GNG, this fails. nothing in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does have refs now. In fact, the article has been expanded since nomination. -- Radagast3 (talk)
  • OK, I see it does have refs now. It still fails the significant coverage criteria of WP:N. If you want to save the article, that's going in the right direction. Ideally what you'd want to settle this and get the AfD monkey off your back is sources which are specifically about Saleyards Creek. Lacking that, realize that sources which just mention the creek may fail to convince anyone. Get as much material as you can find. I didn't find them when I did a Google search. (Or I'd have added them.) I also found and searched http://www.ga.gov.au/map/names/ which appears to be Australia's equivalent of the USGS GNIS system. If it's in a system like that, that should be enough. But again, I didn't find it there. Ikluft (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In this case, it gets multiple mentions in each of multiple reports dealing with local environmental issues -- reports in which local streams, including this one, are a major topic. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salesyards Creek is not a major topic of these reports. it gets some mention but Powells Creek and Mason Park are treated in depth. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the report on Mason Park is about Mason Park, but it also extensively mentions Salesyards Creek and Powells Creek, which both run adjacent to it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still sustaining my delete position. Please don't take it personally. I looked at Google Maps' representation of it, having found Airey and Bressington Parks. The waterway is not labeled, meaning the name is not present in Australian commercial map data that the mapping sites use. This agrees with the Australian government geographic names search coming up empty, which is undoubtedly a source for the commercial map data. Under these conditions, the article really would need sources specifically about it in order to be convincingly notable. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise - but it'll need a secondary source specifically about Saleyards Creek. Ikluft (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's comparable, in fact, to the underground streams of London, such as Counter's Creek, Falconbrook, Stamford Brook, Tyburn (stream), etc. It meets WP:GNG because it's repeatedly mentioned in floodwater studies, environmental reports, and other discussions of the Sydney urban environment. It's a geographical feature. It may have become ugly, but that's an issue of urbanisation. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For info, here is a picture. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. the picture shows a straight concrete edge like open air drains. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed at the detective work. I'm presume that you mean that in dry weather (which it is in that photo) it will only have water at high tide, and that makes sense, since I understand that there are gates permitting tidal water flow into the adjacent tidal wetlands. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:Notability (geography) clearly states that "Named geographic features are usually considered notable. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands etc." This is a named geographic feature (a stream). The fact that it's lined in concrete makes it ugly, but not less notable (makes it more notable in fact, because it generates a discussion about urban ecological issues). The article has several reliable references (and there are other floodwater studies and environmental reports that could have been cited). What more do you want? -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (geography) is an essay and not a guideline. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be an essay, but why do you think it is wrong? In any case, the original nom partly relied on an argument about the nonexistence of other articles about urban streams (which seems to me contra WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), and made a valid point about WP:GNG (but that was before the article had refs). The refs in the article now show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," so WP:GNG is satisfied. I repeat, what more do you want? -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's hardly significant coverage, mainly a few local council reports that verify its existence. other streams may exist because they would have substantial third party coverage more than a few council reports. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put that reference in the article. (Ask for help if you need it. But you seem to have the document.) If the actual title of the article includes Saleyards Creek, that will satisfy what a bunch of us have been asking for. Ikluft (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as named geographic feature.Autarch (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being a named geographical feature isn't enough. It should still show evidence of reception in sources (which isn't hard for any geographic feature of but local significance). ThemFromSpace 00:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Whether it is a stormwater drain or a fjord, it needs coverage in reliable sources. But reliability depends on context, and in this context (an uncontroversial geographical feature), I think the sources in the article are reliable enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one doubts that it exists - it's a less than 2km long creek turned into a concrete storm runoff canal. The question (which makes it controversial) is how the article qualifies by Wikipedia's rules for reliable sources and notability. So far, the references added to the article make passing mentions of Saleyards Creek but aren't actually about it. So that isn't convincing considering the geographic names search at the Australian government didn't have a listing either. Ikluft (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to merge to Powells Creek. The quote above from WP:Notability (geography) continues "The amount of sources and notability of the place are still important, however." So WP:WITHIN applies, which says "Don't create a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article". I've created nearly 500 stub articles about mountain ranges in the Western US - all of them included at least a USGS GNIS reference and an infobox from that data. The Australian government has an equivalent geographic names system. But it does not have a listing for Saleyard/Saleyards Creek in Sydney. (It has other creeks by the same name elsewhere in Australia.) So I think there is no saving this article by Wikipedia standards. However, now that more work has gone into the content during this discussion, that content can be saved by merging into Powells Creek, which does have a listing at Geoscience Australia. Do we have a path to consensus with that idea? Ikluft (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the point of merging when this article is twice the length of Powells Creek (so I don't think WP:WITHIN applies). And as to naming, there is documented evidence of the name being used by state and local governments back to 1933. I note that the name doesn't appear in the GA database, and I'm not sure why that is, but there can be no doubt about the use of the name. I'm still saying "keep." -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of this article's sources are actually about Powells Creek with side mentions of Saleyards Creek. They are also all either primary references by the local government or unverifiable. See WP:PRIMARY and the note "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." At least Powells Creek has a listing at Geoscience Australia to establish its notability. All the delete/merge statements here are based on WP policy/guidelines while the keep statements are not - the closing admin will count the statements based on policy/guidelines. So there is no saving this article. Supporting a merge is the only path to consensus which will save the content. I strongly recommend considering that. Ikluft (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the cited government reports are in fact secondary sources. Primary sources in this context would be first-hand accounts of flooding, and things of that nature (from WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event... An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident... Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources."). -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2010 (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/Saleyards_Creek&oldid=1086113185"