Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourd Creek


 * 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 speedy close. Article was restored against the consensus formed at Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). I have redirected it once again. ✗ plicit  00:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Gourd Creek

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GEOLAND. No non-database/map entries. Iseult  Δx parlez moi 05:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The body of maps and atlases have an unlimited number of bodies of water and other physical features, but that is not the basis for notability: WP:GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." We just have existence of the subject with its location sourced to maps, which is insuffient coverage to establish notabilty. Streams' routes can indeed be described from a map, but it takes more to warrant an entry here. Reywas92Talk 13:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete in support of the original consensus at Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary), which also included this article. Jalen Folf   (talk)  05:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * the consensus was redirectDjflem (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

NOTE this has already been decided at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). This is a unnecessary 2nd nomination. The consensus at 1st- redirect appears to not have been carried out. Would suggest that be done and this AFD withdrawn.Djflem (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)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.