Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Rock basin


 * 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   delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Black Rock basin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable USGS hydrologic unit, in this particular HUC the Black Rock Desert is lumped together with some adjacent drainage basins, there's no reason to do that outside of the USGS classification scheme. See here and here for deletion discussions of similar articles. Kmusser (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The 1914 edition the USDA Bulletin does seem to devote an entire chapter to the Black Rock basin. and I have found some more coverage.  It does seem to satisfy WP:N, maybe not overwhelmingly so. Changed to Weak Delete per arguments below. --Oakshade (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The second one of those isn't referring to the hydrologic unit, since that publication predates the HUC system, note that the HUC is not the same thing as the Black Rock drainage basin (which probably is notable, but is already covered in the Black Rock Desert article). Kmusser (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep/keep — If the article stayed how it is now, the idea of it not failing the notability guideline is laughable, with only 3 Internet sources all from government agencies (and the "not in citation given" templates), but there are quite a few mentions in newspapers, although not very detailed. Add that to its coverage in those books and it begins to establish some notability. Jsayre64   (talk)  04:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those look like they're about the one in Nevada, 2 were about one in Pennsyvania and the rest were all about one in Arizona. Kmusser (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, then. Jsayre64   (talk)  00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as most of the items classified as HUCs are not notable but are merely database names. This series of HUCs is also problematic since the articles are being created using names that are those of real geo features that may in fact be notable.  In the case here, if kept, this should probably be correctly named as Black Rock Desert hydrologic unit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kmusser. This is not a drainage basin in the usual sense of the word, but a set of disconnected basins roped together by the USGS to fit into their nested hierarchical system at the appropriate size/level. Also, one can find reliable sources mentioning USGS hydrologic units like this, but likewise one can find many reliable sources describing ZIP codes. Wikipedia seems to have decided not to have pages on every ZIP code. The situation here is analogous. Pfly (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2010 (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.