Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Creek (Connecticut)


 * 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   merge to Bridgeport, Connecticut.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cedar Creek (Connecticut)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete for non-notability and for being a possible hoax. Google search turned up irrelevent hits only. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. In the first 3 minutes of the article's existence, did the nominator find time to Google this creek amongst tagging it confusing (minute 1), tagging it as a hoax (minute 2), and bringing it to AfD (minute 3)? This creek seems fairly easy to find in a search. • Gene93k (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (edit conflict) Not a hoax according to the Google Maps link on the page, but notability's another matter. Ka renjc 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for a complete lack of notability. Nominator's ruminations about "possible hoax" are silly and completely irrelevant to any discussion.  All that did was call attention to the "premature e-nomination" speed, which is also completely irrelevant to any discussion.  It all comes down to notability.  I'm sure the creek exists, but who cares?  Inhabited locations are considered notable, but we don't have articles about every little creek, fork, branch of a river, babbling brook, etc.   Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- Could you, Mandsford, comment on this without attacking me? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you, Arbiteroftruth, have nominated the article without attacking the author? When you accuse a contributor of pepretrating "a possible hoax", you're in no position to be indignant.   Mandsford (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment When someone, apparently without taking the time to do research, accuses another editor incorrectly of creating a hoax article, I agree there is little room for indignation when the hoax accusations are called "silly." Next time, do a little research before making accusations that a geographic feature found on maps is a hoax. Edison2 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Existence seems verified, but no evidence of notability. Not every dot and squiggle on a map needs an encyclopedia article. Edison2 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Significant geographical features are inherently notable, but this hardly seems a significant feature. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to Bridgeport, Connecticut. It is an actual part of the city's geography, but a quick Google search on my part brought up nothing particularly notable about it to warrant an independent article. &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 00:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to a geography section in the Bridgeport article or to the neighborhood article in which the stream is located. --Polaron | Talk 20:04, 4 September 2008 (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.