Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. counties named after rivers


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

List of U.S. counties named after rivers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is unsourced speculative information and doesn't meet notability.Templates for multiple problems have already been listed without any change. At best this information should be added to individual articles or merged into another list. Shabidoo | Talk 17:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (negotiate)  @ 18:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (articulate)  @ 18:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The etymologies of county names are generally easy to find in reference books and local history books. Unlike placenames, county names generally resulted from legislative action, so there is usually a record of the debate to be found in some dusty file. The articles about the various counties usually state they are named after some particular river (though in turn the river may have been named for some Indian or tribe or some explorer). Thus "speculative" is inaccurate. If sources exist, then "unsourced" is grounds for a maintenance template, not for deletion. I do not see that maintenance templates have been on the article before its AFD nom, as the nominator claims. A diff would be helpful. Such a list seems a welcome navigation guide. What particular article or list does the nominator want the information placed in? Edison (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep etymology and toponymy is encyclopedic; being unsourced is not a reason for deletion, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (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.