Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most polluted rivers in the United States


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

List of the most polluted rivers in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was created in April 2012 without any sources. There has been no substantive work done on it since. The language is unclear ("pollution" and "trash" are interchanged and undefined, "gets" and "gains" are interchanged and undefined). The science appears to be poor, e.g. no allowance is made for total volume of flow. The article is an orphan, and the article remains completely unsourced. Frappyjohn (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - the idea of the article seems valid and could be sourced. Clearly the article has problems, like the majority of wikipedia articles, but is deletion the best approach to dealing with the problem? JoshuSasori (talk) 07:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO. Delete as a mess. It is derived from [ http://www.ewg.org/node/20399 this confused list], with the Pacific Ocean and Grays Harbor removed (as non-rivers), replacing Everett Harbor with the Everett River, keeping the Straits of Juan de Fuca, while shifting some of the numbers to the wrong entries. So tagged. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note: I've declined the speedy deletion; basic factual information cannot be copyrighted. There is nothing in the layout or phrasing that explicitly seems to "copy" the target work, so I don't see that as a problem. Note that this is in no way an expression on the underlying concerns of this AfD, on which I decline to state an opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The title is inaccurate, because pollution doesn't necessarily correspond to trash (there are many other sources of pollution). You would have to rename it to List of rivers with the most trash dumped in them, but I'm not sure that's a notable article subject, and with the concerns about sources there's no point in renaming.  If someone wants to delete and start over, that's fine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Most polluted rivers" is a notable subject, but it's a difficult concept to pin down with statistics. The website this article is copied from measures it in terms of "toxic discharges", and another list produced by Environment America (see pages 34-5) also refers to toxic releases, but as Colapeninsula says, the river into which the most stuff is dumped isn't necessarily the "most polluted". The other problem is that keeping the list up-to-date would require a significant amount of original research, unless we can rely on somebody publishing an accurate annual report (which we can't). So, yeah, on balance, I don't think this is worth keeping around. DoctorKubla (talk)
 * Delete Unsourced original research and POV at best. This merits at best a paragraph in an article somewhere about river pollution in the United States. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing verifiablity. Blue   Riband►  20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced, original research. Moreover, almost any effort to identify a river as "most polluted" is almost inherently going to require original research, because (as commenters above have noted in various ways) the metric of "most polluted" is complicated and a matter of opinion. --Orlady (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, subject does not appear to be notable, as a quick search on Google does not find any significant coverage regarding the subject. Additionally, the article lakes no references and is thus completely subject to WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2012 (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.