Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Highland 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   no consensus. I note that the keep arguments are, to a very great extent, bare assertions not backed up in policy, but there is insufficient consensus to delete this article. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

West Highland Creek

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

As it stands, this as well as Highland Creek (Toronto) is a collection of satellite coordinates, original research, and synthesis of those two. No prejudice against recreation with ANY reliable sources. These are legitimate places, but not legitimate articles.  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * this is the sole source I can find on the subject. I am very busy though, and cannot devote the time to rewriting this. I have no issue cutting the article down to a stub with basic info taken from this source. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  22:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep No original research conducted: all the course information is based on the Atlas of Canada online topographic maps and other local printed maps. However, the article could use a good clean up, and a paring of the coordinates references. Be happy to undertake. Hadn't looked at it for a long time. Would add references to the Canada Geonames entry for the creek; a reference to a printed MapArt atlas; and a link to other resources discovered in a cursory trawl through the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) external link user Floydian has included helpfully above, for example page 7 of this document showing the watershed. The brief flora and fauna comments were carried over from and earlier article that combined Highland Creek the community with the watercourse. I separated those two into Highland Creek (Toronto) and Highland_Creek,_Toronto, and duplicated over the comments for this major tributary. They might be supported by information revealed via the TRCA link.--papageno (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now made a number of changes to the article along these lines.--papageno (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A map, whether online or in atlas form, is valid as a supplementary source for geographic data where the topic's notability has already been established by other sources — but it doesn't demonstrate notability in isolation. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  02:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It could still use cleanup and inline citations, but there are enough references now to make this both verifiable and notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The provided sources are all valid supplementary sources once notability has been established, but they don't demonstrate notability as not a single one of them goes beyond the level of a map or a gazetteer. No prejudice against recreation if real sources can be added, but every last creek in the world would merit its own article if simply being featured on a map were enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect into Highland Creek (Toronto). West Highland Creek certainly doesn't meet notability standards, but it's part of a larger watershed system and the article's content can be moved there.   PK  T (alk)  13:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Not every river can be the Nile, Amazon or Thames. There is no need to delete this. Szzuk (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying every river needs to be. But what rivers (and this isn't even a river, but a creek) do need to be to have articles on here is notable and well-sourced, and there's no evidence that this is either one of those things. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the new information, I'd say a merge is in order. There is not enough information to warrant two separate articles on what is only a single creek (all branches are simply labelled Highland Creek on City of Toronto signs placed at ravine crossings. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  00:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems like the various levels of jurisdiction cannot agree on how to treat the system: while the city (thanks Floydian for tip) and the TRCA (local conservation authority) treat it as one system with branches, the Ontario and Federal levels have three named elements (Highland Creek, West Highland Creek and Southwest Highland Creek. Having spent a lot of time on Atlas of Canada topographic maps, so few waterbody elements in Canada have a name at all that having one — with even a smidgen of additional information — would seem to be notable. That being said, in this case I think a solid, single article is preferable to three, especially for standard elements of a rivers article other than the course (e.g. flora/fauna, geology, etc.), which would otherwise be repeated. User PKT's suggestion of a merge and redirect, supported also by user Floydian, is the best course of action.--papageno (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep bodies of water are normally notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't buy that, and I don't see anything in WP:Notability that agrees with you. Please reference a policy statement of some kind to support your statement.   PK  T (alk)  23:00, 10 April 2010 (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.