Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Nevada Desert Basins


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Central Nevada Desert Basins

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

See the discussion on WP:RIVERS talk; this was created by an editor that has been making disruptive edits, it is not a notable subject under Wikipedia guidelines, furthermore it relies mostly on a single source, the USGS-HuC page. The article does not state how the subject is notable and how it differs in any way from the surrounding spread of the Great Basin. How is this series of watersheds notable? Is it geographically, or biologically, or climatically, distinct? No it isn’t. They don’t even outlet to the same lake or river. Look on the map in the article… it’s just random. The article describes one valley that lies between the Humboldt and Walker basins, another one south of Las Vegas, one near the White River Valley, one south of the Humboldt headwaters… what?
 * Delete per nom. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The subject is covered by Great Basin and I don't think this is a likely search term that would warrant a redirect.  Kmusser (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (changing to neutral). It is a distinct watershed, with its own Hydrologic Unit Code (1606) - for more sites mentioning that code see this search . Hydrologic units defined by the US govt are not random. Here is a precipitation map by the Natural Resources Conservation Service showing its borders and precipitation status: . It's quite large and more statistical data is available. A USDA agricultural census of the watershed can be seen here ; its title is Great Basin Water Resource Region 16 - HUC6 Level Watersheds. This is encylopedic information. Novickas (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing to neutral. There is a lot of info in here already, all relevant to the topic, and I'm a little sad to think of its removal, but I take the analogy to zipcodes - currently not acceptable here without wider coverage in secondary sources. Someday, maybe, for both. Novickas (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - a little more info. There are 21 major hydrologic units in the US and 221 subregions. . This one is a subregion . Novickas (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not a watershed – it is a series of endorheic basins and valleys. It isn't physically distinct from the rest of the Great Basin as far as I know. How is it geologically, physically, climactically, culturally different? It doesn't drain to a common point either. Why is this notable and distinct from the rest of GB? Shannon  talk   contribs  05:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What matters is that reliable sources (and you can't get much more reliable than the USGS) treat this as a distinct unit, not any of our subjective ideas of importance. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The USGS hydrologic units are not the same thing as watersheds - from the page you linked to "A cataloging unit is a geographic area representing part or all of a surface drainage basin, a combination of drainage basins, or a distinct hydrologic feature." They are created by USGS specifically for reporting and making maps of hydrologic data, that doesn't automatically make them a good way for wikipedia to organize our river-related articles. In this case USGS combined 24 small basins that have almost no hydrologic data into one big polygon for data reporting convenience. You are right in that the unit isn't arbitrary, these basins are connected by USGS' lack of data about them - is that a good combination to base an article on? Linking to stuff about the Great Basin Water Resource Region isn't really relevant - that matches up with our Great Basin article which is fine. Kmusser (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What connection does a hydrologic unit not being the same thing as a watershed have with whether we should have an article about this topic? The whole thrust of our "no original research" policy is that we follow such authorities as the USGS rather than making up our own classification scheme based on a couple of editors' personal opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If it’s anyone’s “personal opinions”, it probably isn’t mine or the opinions of anyone here. Our WP:RIVERS conventions which were set quite a while ago generally define watersheds as the land area that drains into a particular point. But away with guidelines and on to my main question that you sockpuppets still haven’t answered. (Yes I know that Hike796, Mmcannis, the anon IP editors, and probably Novickas are the same person. Is it that hard to tell? :D) HOW IS THIS REGION DISTINCT FROM THE REST OF THE GREAT BASIN??? And can you find a source other than the USGS if you really think this is a notable subject? Otherwise that’s breaking the policy that no article should rely on a single source – in this case the USGS. Even though yes, USGS is a reliable source, but it is only one source and we really need some other sources. If you can’t find this in any publication that isn’t by the USGS, that’ll be a problem for this article. And lastly, why not just create a page called “List of U.S. Geological Survey hydrological units”. We here on Wikipedia still doubt the notability of a geographic region that doesn’t differ significantly from what surrounds it. Following this example, I could create an article called “Northeast Gulf Coast hydrologic region” comprising the watersheds of the Brazos, Trinity and Colorado Rivers and claim it is notable because it comprises a tad bit over 100,000 square miles. Shannon  talk   contribs  20:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please calm down so that we can have a civil discussion and withdraw your ridiculous accusation of sockpuppetry. Secondly, as I said in my previous comment, it doesn't matter whether this is a watershed or not, as the definition of what this "thing" is is a matter that can be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I never accused YOU of sockpuppeting, I was accusing the two or three editors that are editing those articles, as well as the multiple IPs. If you answer my question of why this subject is significant other than the fact that the USGS uses it for cataloging convenience then maybe I will withdraw from this AfD altogether. Shannon talk   contribs  21:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In your reply to my comment you used the phrase "you sockpuppets", a clear accusation against ME. You also explicitly accused another long-standing editor, Novickas, with absolutely no evidence, unless you think that the fact that more than one person questions your position automatically makes them sockpuppets. Please withdraw both of these accusations. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because by itself it isn't really a topic, it's one subcategory of a larger classification scheme. Is every category of every classification scheme a government agency comes up with notable? No one is proposing an alternate classification here, just that not every category of the USGS scheme necessarily warrants its own article. And to Shannon, I'll second the chill out - the disruptive edits we've been having to deal with really is a different discussion from this AFD. If the consensus here is keep I could probably rewrite the article so that it's actually about the HUC rather than its current incoherent state. Kmusser (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I only made the sock accusations because I noticed very similar editing patterns and wording/edit summary styles in the edits of certain users. But Phil you still did not answer my question about how the damn topic is notable in any other way. I note that although the article has a fair amount of refs, all of them except one is attributed to the USGS, and the one other is for the USDA which is closely affiliated with USGS... Shannon  talk   contribs  01:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, so far I've seen exactly one solid reference besides the definition that is actually about the subject (that is #5 in the article). The rest have all been either passing mentions that it exists without any content, or maps of something else that use the USGS HUCs in general as a background layer. Kmusser (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Before commenting here, I checked WP:Common outcomes. It read 'Major geographical and geological features featured on maps, such as lakes, rivers, mountains, mountain passes, etc., generally survive AfD.' Having found it on an online map (now in the article, and it is apparently updated every month), and seeing it as a major geographical feature (by virtue of its size and being one of the 221 USGS hydrologic subregions), I agreed that it deserved its own article. IMO all 16 US hydrologic regions and all 221 subregions deserve articles, and they can co-exist peacefully with other geographic articles. It is very sparsely inhabited and doesn't seem to have attracted much attention, mostly stats collection; all the same, its existence is verifiable in reliable sources and because of its status as an HUC there are a fair number of stats. I see this AFD as a test of the viability of the USGS hydrologic units on WP; they probably all overlap with other river, basin, ecology, culture articles. They might have fewer non-US-government sources than those do, but to my mind their verifiable definition by the USGS justifies separate articles. Novickas (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise, since I am still completely against having over 200 of these articles on Wikipedia, but I find it impossible to get my simple point through to you guys. How about creating one page, that lists all the hydrologic subregions, perhaps just adding to the hydrologic code article that already exists. Shannon  talk   contribs  06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A list would be good as a complement to the articles, but it couldn't include individual maps, which are an important feature of geographic articles. Novickas (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (@Shannon1) It would be much easier to discuss a compromise if you were to drop the aggressive attitude. Your "simple" point has got through to "us guys", but some of us disagree with it. I'm not prepared to enter into any further discussion with you until you start communicating in a civil manner. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a geographic feature though - the geographic features would be the individual drainage basins, which should and for the most part do have articles of their own - this is a grouping of basins for USGS' classification scheme. I think the HUCs are comparable to Zip Codes, you can find lots of maps with zip codes on them, lots of statistics arranged by zip code, and zip codes collectively are certainly notable - but we don't generally have articles on individual zip codes unless they're famous for something other than just existing (e.g. 90210).  Kmusser (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The zip code analogy makes sense to me. Many of the USGS's HUCs are clearly "arbitrary" and designed to separate drainages into conveniently sized areas without always conforming to specific watersheds. Here's an example. Subregion 1704 is called "Upper Snake: The Snake River basin to and including the Clover Creek basin". HUC units within it include such things as 17040212 "Upper Snake-Rock". Here is a map (low quality) of the Upper Snake subregion's HUCs. The Upper Snake-Rock HUC is simply a portion along the Snake River that doesn't fit into any of the other HUCs with more significant tributaries. You can't tell from this map, but the American Falls and Lake Walcott HUCs include large areas that do not drain to the Snake at all, rather sink into the ground here and there, into the Snake River Plain aquifer. Sometimes the USGS's combines streams into HUCs, as you can see by names like Greys-Hoback, Beaver-Camas, and Snake Headwaters (I'm linking to rivers pages if we have one). Anyway, this is just the first few examples that came to mind. Point is, HUCs do not consistently relate to watersheds the way one might think. Coastal areas are especially prone to oddness of this type, due to there being many small streams draining directly to the ocean. Examples: HUC 17100101 "Hoh-Quillayute", 17100102 "Queets-Quinault", 17100106 "Grays Harbor" (not a river at all, and into which quite a few separate rivers empty), 17100203 "Wilson-Trusk-Nestuccu" (heh, some spelling errors there, USGS!). HUCs are widely used for many purposes, so they are clearly notable. But zip codes are also widely used for many purposes. I'm not sure offhand if we have pages for individual zip codes (surely not all zip codes, but maybe some?), and I'm not sure what argument one would use against the idea of having such pages. But it does seem like a good analogy here. Pfly (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure it should be deleted due to lack of notability. However, reading the article made me highly confused. I understand it is about the USGS HUC subregion 1606 (which incidentally is identical to HUC "accounting unit" 160600), but beyond that... well I won't describe the problems in detail. The ecoregion info confuses me in many ways. I can't figure out what the Arid Footslopes might be, nor what purpose the "Tonopah Basin" section serves, or how it related to USGS HUC 1606, other than apparently being located in the same general area. Skipping over the random-looking map confusingly captioned "CNDB points extend into the Mojave Desert", what's with the long table? Lots of detail, but...why? The main text is confusing enough. The table takes it to another level. ...I'm left...speechless. Can this be salvaged at all? Pfly (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the table is confusing but that could be worked out. The Tonopah Basin section, maybe a good-faith effort to show that the entity does encompass some unique ecological regions as defined by the state of Nevada. Could be condensed. Novickas (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How am I being not civil? Maybe the problem is that you keep blatantly offending me. I'm not going to take this sock thing too far as this is not WP:Sock investigations. Though if you keep mentioning it, I'll take it there. But the main point is why do you condense all these valleys into a single subject. Supposedly each of these valleys/drainage basins is notable in its own right, and many of them already have articles. How about changing the name of the article to "List of endorheic basins of Nevada". User:Phil Bridger you aren't making a strong argument because all you're doing is complaining about how you thought I accused you of having sockpuppets. Shannon  talk   contribs  17:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The notability of these individual units is what is questionable.  If this is important and a notable general topic, then someone can create Hydrologic Unit Code and include a list of these units in there maybe using a series of tables for each type of unit.  The table entries could include details like the locations and broader unit names. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a HUC subsection in this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:45, 1 November 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.