Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things 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 delete. No need to salt as this hasn't been deleted repeatedly. --Core desat 21:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

List of things named after rivers
A collection of largely random things - a small one at present, but it appears to be only just starting. Though I can see why some might consider this list a good idea, it will be almost totally unmanageable; either things named only directly after rivers are to be included, or things indirectly named after them can be added as well. If the latter is the case, this list will soon become of impossioble size: how many things in the US are named Missouri something, Mississippi something, Ohio something, or Arkansas soomething? They are named after the states, which are named after the rivers - therefore, things like Ohio University are indirectly named after rivers. On the other hand, if only things directly named after rivers are to be added, we veer towards OR territory (how do you tell whether something in Sacramento is named after the city or the river?) and are also still in the realms of the enormous - bridges, schools, shipping companies, towns, you name it. In its present form, I don't see anyway this could ever approach being an encyclopedic article, and to attempt to limit the meaning of the title will define it out of practical use. As such, sadly, this appears to be unlikely to be anything other than a delete. Grutness...wha?  04:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is about to go dynamiclist, so I say delete as well. It could become 300-something KB, which is enormous. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 04:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nom. Considering that many rivers are named after other things, having a list of things that are named after rivers is both silly & potentially unmanageable. Spawn Man 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the nom says it all. --Ter e nce Ong (C 05:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom - Shaggorama 06:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Will this include everything named after every river? Good grief, I could make a 300 KB article out of things named after the Bow River, and that's a very minor river compared to the Missouri. Unmanageable and neverending. -- Charlene 06:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 09:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, too broad and vague criterion makes the list useless, also at this stage it shows a geographic bias. J I P  | Talk 10:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete before it reaches the Amazon. Hydronymcruft.--Folantin 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreschi 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too broad of a category.  Even if there was a point in making a difinitive list, it would be unverifiable, excesivelly long, and would have virtually no encyclopedic content whatsoever.  Spinach Dip 20:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory/unlimited amount of information. Hello32020 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Oh, wow, I can go crazy with this. Violates WP:NOT since it's an indiscriminate list. Violates WP:OR since you can't be sure this is why the things were named that. (Mississippi Stadium -- named for river or state? Or tribe?) Violates WP:V since there isn't a way to know, except OR, what was named and why. Violates WP:RS since there isn't a source in sight....I could go on, but WHY? In fact, add some salt to this entry so that it doesn't happen again. EVER. -- Shrieking Harpy  . . . . . .       TalkundefinedCount 21:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per all above. JGardner 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Excellent nomination argument is fairly convincing, although it could be verifiable (it ought to be possible to determine which things are named directly after the river or not). But in the real world it won't be verified and will become a magnet for WP:OR as the nominator notes. Herostratus 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Just give this time to improve and grow.  --164.107.92.120 22:33, 15 November 2006 (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.