Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Rock Hollow

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. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Rock Hollow

Procedural nomination: after placing an AFD tag on the article, User:Cmichael only left ADW notices on three editors' talk pages and made some small modifications to the article for the county in which this hollow is located. The article is about a small hollow in Greenbrier County, West Virginia, and Cmichael's apparent reason for nomination (as expressed in the edit summary for the edit in which he placed the tag) is "What makes this hollow notable? I don't know." Please replace my commentary etc. in this nomination with Cmichael's reasoning if he coems here to explain his reasons for submitting this article to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've explained reasons, I'll say Keep: small hollows surely aren't major geographical features that are inherently notable, but this place seems to have enough sources to demonstrate minor notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article makes no claim of notability. There are a lot of hollows in West Virginia. Why is this one special? WVhybrid (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I believe that it does because (1) streams, etc. can be notable — thus that's the assertion of notability, being a geographic feature, and (2) its multiple reliable sources demonstrate notability that's claimed. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do we really want to start writing articles for every WV hollar just yet? We have so much to do first. No prej. against recreation down the line, though. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do believe you're becoming an Incrementalist :) Grutness...wha? 01:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just wanna finish all of the podunks and rivers in West Virginia first. youngamerican (wtf?) 03:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Nyttend, I believe I left an AFD notice for every editor that wasn't an obvious bot. If I left anybody out, I apologize for that oversight.

I have been a fairly frequent contributor to the Greenbrier County article over time. My recent edits are only my latest.

Per WP:NGL, the guidelines on notability for geographic features are not yet settled. If a consensus eventually forms around Option 1, then Cat Run Hollow and every other named geographic feature in the world would be considered notable. If the consensus eventually favors Option 3, then Cat Run Hollow might or might not be included. On the other hand, if the consensus forms around Option 2, which I would personally favor, then Cat Run Hollow would be excluded.

The only other article that links to this one is the one for Greenbrier County, WV, where the hollow is apparently located. All of the other links on that page are to far more notable articles. Cat Run Hollow sticks out in the list for its lack of notability.

The articles on the Greenbrier River, Beartown, Greenbrier State Forest, Greenbrier River Trail, and other geographic features could still use a lot of work, and no one would argue that Cat Run Hollow compares to any of them in notability.

Unless there is something special about Cat Run Hollow that I don't know about, I just don't think we should water down an encyclopedia by opening this door right now. If we do, then I could just as well write an article about Court Street, which is simply an ordinary residential street in Lewisburg where I used to live, and claim that it is notable because it appears on many, many maps. Cmichael (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all major geographic features are inherently notable, just like (for example) all professional athletes are notable. However, to use a biography example, I don't believe this hollow is any more notable than an amateur sportsperson: just like the amateur sportsperson isn't inherently notable, this hollow isn't inherently notable, but both are notable if and only if they have enough sources to make them notable anyway. I've supported keeping this article because I believe it's notable, not because it's an inherently notable place, but because it has multiple reliable sources that suffice for verification as required by our notability policies. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what are these "multiple reliable sources?" All I see are a listing in a database which was taken from a topo map, and another database listing that shows the stream is known to the EPA. Hardly evidence of notability, IMHO.

To carry on your "notable people" analogy, I am no professional athlete or major league politician, but I am known by family and friends. Furthermore, I do have an email address, and I am listed in the telephone book. Does that mean that an article about me would meet notability criteria? I think not. Cmichael (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The EPA listing and the USGS topo map are what I mean — they're multiple reliable sources. BLP concerns mean that simple listings like this for people aren't as significant (hence you're not notable) as listings for other subjects. Nyttend (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:NGL will eventually be controlling. If the community establishes a consensus around option 1, I would be willing to reconsider, but for now, I say Delete. Cmichael (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is only reasonable, seeing that you're the real nominator :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several days ago I asked for an explanation of why this particular hollow is notable. The reply that this place is notable just because it exists or that it is listed in some database just doesn't hold water. Let's look at the reference links. One of the links is an record of a EPA water sample point location, that, guess what, the EPA hasn't sampled. If we use this database of as proof a notability, then every sewer pipe in the country country would be notable, because, rest assured, the EPA has database record of each and every one. The other link is just as obtuse. It is a record from a GIS data base that seems to contain hundreds of thousands of geographic locations. Is every sidewalk intersection in every city notable? Is every hollow notable? Clearly not. If evidence is shown that something notable happened in this hollow, say of a notable crime or of the homestead of a notable West Virginia, then this hollow might then be notable. But listing in a database of EPA sample points or US Geographic Survey GPS locations does not inherently make the location notable. WVhybrid (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there something into which the entire article can be merged? This info is too good to lose, but, sheesh, I'm still not ready to write about my 27 favorite hollars withing 30 mins of my parents house. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: little more to say about this than that it exists. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.