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. W.marsh 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etuvluk River[edit]

Etuvluk River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

non-notable, possibly non-existent river, not in GNIS (http://geonames.usgs.gov/redirect.html) or on any map I could find, Google only brings up Wikipedia mirrors Kmusser 17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The river appears in Alaska laws 5 AAC 99.025. Customary and traditional uses of game populations. Apparently it's in or near the Schwatka Mountains. It's a real river. Flyguy649 ^talk_contribs 18:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that's the only reference I'm tempted to say it may be a typo or something - if it is a real river I'd expect it to be on a map somewhere, I've checked the most detailed maps made of the Schwatka Mountain area and it's not on there. Kmusser 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you may be right. If you look here (roughly south of Peard Bay and roughly east of Cape Krusenstern), you can see that there is a River Etivluk. And there seem to be plenty of reliable sources that discuss it. Jakew 13:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per flyguy. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - it is a real river. Needs more info. Shruti14 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a real river and thus notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mention of the river is already included in Wikipedia, in List of rivers in Alaska, otherwise I'd have suggested merging. If the river is notable enough to justify its own article, we need some sources to allow us to state - and verify - more than just the existence of the subject. But - like the nominator - I've been unsuccessful in my own best efforts to find these sources. Jakew 22:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per refs provided by Flyguy. It is a real river. --Oakshade 22:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Flyguy649's ref confirms the subject's existence, but I can't personally see how we can use it as a source. It is apparently part of a table. To quote, it states: "...that portion east of the Etuvluk River (Schwatka Mountains) positive 2 - 4 Units...". Jakew 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as geographical features are generally notable, being permanent and all. --Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Jakew 10:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OUTCOMES, geographical features such as rivers are considered inherently notable. --Oakshade 21:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that it states: "This page is not policy. This page is for quick, easy-to-follow tips. Detailed rules, guidelines, and suggestions should go on the various notability policy pages instead." I interpret that to mean that if the minimum standard of WP:N is met, then there are no further requirements for a river. Do you think that's reasonable? Jakew 21:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is not policy either. WP:CONSENSUS (which is policy) has recognized "inherent" notability of certain topics like towns and geographical features even if they have zero significant coverage by reliable sources. Even WP:N states at the top that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Oakshade 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus supposedly always means "within the framework of established policy and practice" (that's a quote). If a subject hasn't received any coverage in reliable sources, then it cannot exist without violating WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. In this case, it has only received very trivial coverage in a single source, which means that we basically have nothing to say about it. Notability, in general, is a WP:V issue: if a subject has been noted, it is notable (though we may have additional requirements). If there's a consensus that rivers are an exception to WP:N, or indeed WP:V, then surely we need to change policy/guidelines to reflect that? Jakew 10:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And within the framework of established policy and practice, practice especially, certain topics like geographical features are considered inherently notable with no coverage from secondary sources. --Oakshade 16:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practice only, apparently. Which is a particular problem in this case, because there is only a single source, which is a web reprint at a company's website, and may well contain a misprint for Etivluk (see above comment by Kmusser and my reply). So it is entirely possible that Wikipedia will declare that a non-existent river not only exists but is notable enough to warrant its own page. Which I find worrying. Jakew 16:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:N, right at the top A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right. That's why we have specialized standards. They can all be changed, of course, if there is consensus to change them. If WP:N were the only guideline, everything would be argued from first principles, and the result would be chaos. The more things we can make into brightline groups by consensus, the better. I do not want to discuss 5000 articles a day here. DGG (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A1: it's empty. "Superman is a hero" is not an article. "The Etuvluk River is a river" is not an article. It's not even a lexically meaningful sentence. Shame on you "keep, notable" voters. It's not about notability: it's about validity as an article, and this isn't. Geogre 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - Somebody very inappropriately speedy deleted this article as this AfD is in progress. I just put it to DRV here. --Oakshade 04:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the admin who commented just above you. I suggest he reverse himself. I'd undelete it myself if I hadn't been participating in the discussion. DGG (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewritten The article was speedy deleted and recreated at a different spelling at this point in the conversation. The rewritten article is radically different than the original version, and some prior comments may be less relevant or no longer true. GRBerry 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to note that with over 250,000 rivers in the US alone[1], and obviously a lot more in the wider world, I think that we need to develop some guidelines for notability of rivers. In the absence of such guidelines, however, I would like to state that most of my concerns about Etuvluk River do not apply to the new article (Etivluk River). Jakew 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My original criteria for deletion does not apply to the new article. Kmusser 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the rewrite. --Myles Long 20:52, 20 August 2007 (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.