Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams

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

?Notable

When I started to compile this list I thought it was appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. I had found the many lists here to be incredibly useful and thought that this one would be worth adding. Now I'm not sure it meets WP criteria, can't bring myself to dump it and in any case lack the experience and objectivity to judge it properly. So I'm bringing it in to be tried.

I am unsure if the list's potential as a word-games resource is of relevance to Wikipedia's aims or not. Either way I think it also provides useful information. If a reader Searches for Sum River (which has no Wikipedia article) the Search results page will show its entry in the list. There s/he will find that such streams do exist in Russia and Thailand and by following the cited web-links can find out more.

I must also declare a personal interest. If the list is thought worth keeping, information in it will provide a vital strand in a competition I am hoping will be run by a top UK daily newspaper. To tackle the competition, readers will have to use Wikipedia (for the list, obviously, and for other things as well). The page's notability will get a boost while the competition is on and I think there will be permanent positive effects on both its notability and the attitude to Wikipedia of the paper's readers (the paper in question tends to be a bit anti-Wikipedia.). I will be donating to Wikipedia one-third of whatever I may get for setting the competition.

I don't think this plan conflicts with the interests of Wikipedia. If the list's worth keeping, it's worth keeping (and improving). But is it worth keeping?

I'd say Keep but then I would, wouldn't I? Dinoceras (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The collection is totally arbitrary; there is no connection between them other than the length of names. The intro also suggests this is a copyviolation. Ros0709 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me say first how much I appreciate the honesty and good faith of the nominator. We need more of that. As to the above remark about a copyvio, I'm pretty sure anything published by the federal government is the common property of all U.S. citizens and cannot be copyrighted. All that aside, helping people in word games is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and the list does not provide any good encyclopedic content or any real assistance in navigating. Perhaps it would work as a category and still serve the author's purpose, but I'm going to say Delete the list. Alternatively, you could have it userfied so it would still be accessible. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your courteous comments. You say the list might work as a category.  I'm not sure how categories work and have failed to find any information on the subject (don't know which keywords to search with, I suspect)  Could you direct me to a page which would explain? Dinoceras (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and honesty about this article, but it's rather arbitrary to have only 1- 2- and 3-letter names, nor is it notable. I'll have to vote Delete but I would not oppose you keeping this list in userspace.   Reywas92 Talk  22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as plain trivia. Alexius08 (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Trim tothe 1 and 2 letter words -- three letter names are pretty common. A list is better than a category because it can indicate the location. A category can not. But i think we might like to hear more about this competition--perhaps on your user talk  page? DGG (talk) 04:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness to other potential competitors, I don't feel I can give out much information about the competition. It won't work if the three-letter streams aren't accessible to the general public but that's my problem not yours  Dinoceras (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but remove the three-letter names. Place names of one and two letters are somewhat unusual and I think this is a viable list, however I'm concerned about the fact there are few if any links here to articles. If the rivers themselves aren't notable enough for articles, are they notable enough for a list of this nature? That's why I put "weak" keep. In principle I think the idea works; in practice it needs some work. Another reason for the "weak" modifier is the fact the list creator has nominated it. 23skidoo (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Isn't deciding for ourselves that one and two letter names are automatically notable original research? I admit it's unusual, but is there any real encyclopedic reason that three letters are not noteworthy and two are? Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OR applies to the content of articles. We often do a little quick research here or in talk space to see if something is notable, or to decide other questions raised.But deciding on a general question about what we should count as notable is discussion not research in any event. DGG (talk) 23:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you do have a good point there, perhaps that was a bad choice of words on my part. What I was getting at is that I don't see how cutting it down to two letter names makes it a more valid concept than if the three letter names were included. It seems a rather subjective line, as I for one couldn't think of a single three letter river name off the top of my head. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:LISTCRUFT is a relevent essay here. Ros0709 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if reduced to one and two letter names it will still be trivia. To support a competition is a very strong argument for speedy deletion. Dinoceras may publish it on his own website. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. My old faculty office had just such a crossword cheat book in, for coffee break quizzes. Unfortunately, that book was not an encylopedia. Useful, but unencylopedic.Yobmod (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Questionable Transwiki to Wiktionary, where it might serve as an Appendix (complete with citations). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I find the article's author completely charming, I have to vote delete, per WP:NOT.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The hour of execution approaches. Ah, well.  Thank you all for your time and your kindness and courtesy.  My special thanks to those who made suggestions to try to save at least part of the list.   Dinoceras (talk) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – WP:LC.Tcrow777Talk 01:08, 9 October 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.