Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Creek (Missouri)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Peter Creek (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like a small and unimportant stream. Refs appear to be minor features on a map. Nothing to suggest that the notability standards for inclusion have been met JMWt (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Missouri. JMWt (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Beware of thinking that creeks are small and unimportant. Some can turn out to be overwhelmingly notable, with reams of documentation from county histories to water-supply papers. Never idly go by what it "seems like". Do the research.
In this case the research reveals that the totality of what is known about this creek comes, via Bernice Eugenia Johnson's 1933 thesis (hdl:10355/64422 doi:10.32469/10355/64422) and the Robert L. Ramsey Place Names Collection (which then went into the GNIS, which here is cited as though it is an independent source), from 1 sentence in the Bates county history (The History of Cass and Bates counties, Missouri at the HathiTrust Digital Library) and Johnson's primary research that added a detail.
The Atkeson county history has stuff that when read in full turns out to be about Mingo Township.
I have a modicum of experience doing creeks, and this creek I'd list as a tributary in South Grand River, which is an GNIS mess article that could do so much better given what sources are available.
Uncle G (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- can you be clearer? Is that a !keep !delete or !merge? JMWt (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to South Grand River with the possibility of merging some verifiable information. The sources found by Uncle G are clearly enough to support a redirect, but probably not enough to justify a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC) - Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)