Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

203:
other things as well). The page's notability will get a boost while the competition is on and I think there will be permanent positive effects on both its notability and the attitude to Knowledge (XXG) of the paper's readers (the paper in question tends to be a bit anti-Knowledge (XXG).). I will be donating to Knowledge (XXG) one-third of whatever I may get for setting the competition.
271:
Let me say first how much I appreciate the honesty and good faith of the nominator. We need more of that. As to the above remark about a copyvio, I'm pretty sure anything published by the federal government is the common property of all U.S. citizens and cannot be copyrighted. All that aside, helping
198:
I am unsure if the list's potential as a word-games resource is of relevance to Knowledge (XXG)'s aims or not. Either way I think it also provides useful information. If a reader Searches for Sum River (which has no Knowledge (XXG) article) the Search results page will show its entry in the list.
194:
When I started to compile this list I thought it was appropriate for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). I had found the many lists here to be incredibly useful and thought that this one would be worth adding. Now I'm not sure it meets WP criteria, can't bring myself to dump it and in any case lack the
393:
but remove the three-letter names. Place names of one and two letters are somewhat unusual and I think this is a viable list, however I'm concerned about the fact there are few if any links here to articles. If the rivers themselves aren't notable enough for articles, are they notable enough for a
202:
I must also declare a personal interest. If the list is thought worth keeping, information in it will provide a vital strand in a competition I am hoping will be run by a top UK daily newspaper. To tackle the competition, readers will have to use Knowledge (XXG) (for the list, obviously, and for
458:
Hmm, you do have a good point there, perhaps that was a bad choice of words on my part. What I was getting at is that I don't see how cutting it down to two letter names makes it a more valid concept than if the three letter names were included. It seems a rather subjective line, as I for one
294:
Thank you for your courteous comments. You say the list might work as a category. I'm not sure how categories work and have failed to find any information on the subject (don't know which keywords to search with, I suspect) Could you direct me to a page which would explain?
350:
tothe 1 and 2 letter words -- three letter names are pretty common. A list is better than a category because it can indicate the location. A category can not. But i think we might like to hear more about this competition--perhaps on your user talk page?
160: 439:
of articles. We often do a little quick research here or in talk space to see if something is notable, or to decide other questions raised.But deciding on a general question about what we should count as notable is discussion not research in any event.
272:
people in word games is not the purpose of Knowledge (XXG), and the list does not provide any good encyclopedic content or any real assistance in navigating. Perhaps it would work as a category and still serve the author's purpose, but I'm going to say
371:
In fairness to other potential competitors, I don't feel I can give out much information about the competition. It won't work if the three-letter streams aren't accessible to the general public but that's my problem not yours
88: 83: 92: 75: 154: 394:
list of this nature? That's why I put "weak" keep. In principle I think the idea works; in practice it needs some work. Another reason for the "weak" modifier is the fact the list creator has nominated it.
593:
The hour of execution approaches. Ah, well. Thank you all for your time and your kindness and courtesy. My special thanks to those who made suggestions to try to save at least part of the list.
506:. Even if reduced to one and two letter names it will still be trivia. To support a competition is a very strong argument for speedy deletion. Dinoceras may publish it on his own website. — 121: 206:
I don't think this plan conflicts with the interests of Knowledge (XXG). If the list's worth keeping, it's worth keeping (and improving). But is it worth keeping?
175: 527:. My old faculty office had just such a crossword cheat book in, for coffee break quizzes. Unfortunately, that book was not an encylopedia. Useful, but unencylopedic. 142: 250: 618: 602: 588: 563: 536: 519: 498: 468: 451: 424: 403: 381: 362: 342: 325: 304: 285: 265: 240: 222: 57: 313:
Thank you for your time and honesty about this article, but it's rather arbitrary to have only 1- 2- and 3-letter names, nor is it notable. I'll have to vote
231:. The collection is totally arbitrary; there is no connection between them other than the length of names. The intro also suggests this is a copyviolation. 136: 132: 79: 182: 71: 63: 148: 17: 558: 199:
There s/he will find that such streams do exist in Russia and Thailand and by following the cited web-links can find out more.
584: 515: 633: 36: 415:? I admit it's unusual, but is there any real encyclopedic reason that three letters are not noteworthy and two are? 632:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
261: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
53: 486: 555: 464: 420: 281: 598: 578: 377: 338: 300: 257: 218: 168: 511: 399: 323: 494: 236: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
532: 573: 550: 460: 416: 277: 611: 412: 594: 373: 334: 296: 214: 276:
the list. Alternatively, you could have it userfied so it would still be accessible.
615: 507: 447: 411:
Isn't deciding for ourselves that one and two letter names are automatically notable
395: 358: 318: 195:
experience and objectivity to judge it properly. So I'm bringing it in to be tried.
490: 232: 109: 528: 49: 459:
couldn't think of a single three letter river name off the top of my head.
442: 353: 568:
Though I find the article's author completely charming, I have to vote
549:, where it might serve as an Appendix (complete with citations). -- 626:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
546: 317:
but I would not oppose you keeping this list in userspace.
116: 105: 101: 97: 167: 72:
List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams
64:
List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams
181: 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 636:). No further edits should be made to this page. 8: 251:list of Lists-related deletion discussions 249:: This debate has been included in the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 24: 213:but then I would, wouldn't I? 1: 619:01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 603:11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 589:16:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 564:23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 537:19:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 520:16:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 499:15:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 469:04:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 452:23:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 425:07:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 404:07:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 382:12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 363:04:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 343:01:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 326:22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 305:12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 286:21:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 266:21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 241:21:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 223:19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 58:08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 653: 489:is a relevent essay here. 629:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 559:egg-throwing coleslaw? 435:OR applies to the 44:The result was 587: 581: 562: 413:original research 333:as plain trivia. 268: 254: 644: 631: 583: 577: 553: 321: 255: 245: 186: 185: 171: 119: 113: 95: 34: 652: 651: 647: 646: 645: 643: 642: 641: 640: 634:deletion review 627: 576:.--Esprit15d • 319: 128: 115: 86: 70: 67: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 650: 648: 639: 638: 622: 621: 605: 591: 566: 539: 522: 501: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 428: 427: 406: 387: 386: 385: 384: 366: 365: 345: 328: 310: 309: 308: 307: 289: 288: 269: 258:Undead Warrior 243: 189: 188: 125: 66: 61: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 649: 637: 635: 630: 624: 623: 620: 617: 613: 609: 606: 604: 600: 596: 592: 590: 586: 580: 575: 571: 567: 565: 560: 557: 552: 548: 544: 541:Questionable 540: 538: 534: 530: 526: 523: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 502: 500: 496: 492: 488: 485: 482: 481: 470: 466: 462: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 449: 445: 444: 438: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 426: 422: 418: 414: 410: 407: 405: 401: 397: 392: 389: 388: 383: 379: 375: 370: 369: 368: 367: 364: 360: 356: 355: 349: 346: 344: 340: 336: 332: 329: 327: 324: 322: 316: 312: 311: 306: 302: 298: 293: 292: 291: 290: 287: 283: 279: 275: 270: 267: 263: 259: 252: 248: 244: 242: 238: 234: 230: 227: 226: 225: 224: 220: 216: 212: 207: 204: 200: 196: 192: 184: 180: 177: 174: 170: 166: 162: 159: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 138: 134: 131: 130:Find sources: 126: 123: 118: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 68: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 628: 625: 607: 569: 542: 524: 503: 487:WP:LISTCRUFT 483: 441: 436: 408: 390: 352: 347: 330: 314: 273: 246: 228: 210: 208: 205: 201: 197: 193: 190: 178: 172: 164: 157: 151: 145: 139: 129: 45: 43: 31: 28: 155:free images 551:Slgrandson 547:Wiktionary 461:Beeblebrox 417:Beeblebrox 278:Beeblebrox 595:Dinoceras 543:Transwiki 391:Weak keep 374:Dinoceras 335:Alexius08 297:Dinoceras 215:Dinoceras 191:?Notable 616:Tcrow777 585:contribs 556:How's my 516:contribs 508:RHaworth 409:Question 396:23skidoo 320:Reywas92 209:I'd say 122:View log 491:Ros0709 484:Comment 437:content 233:Ros0709 161:WP refs 149:scholar 89:protect 84:history 608:Delete 574:WP:NOT 572:, per 570:delete 529:Yobmod 525:Delete 504:Delete 331:Delete 315:Delete 274:Delete 229:Delete 133:Google 117:delete 93:delete 50:Stifle 46:delete 612:WP:LC 176:JSTOR 137:books 120:) – ( 110:views 102:watch 98:links 16:< 599:talk 579:talk 533:talk 512:Talk 495:talk 465:talk 448:talk 421:talk 400:talk 378:talk 359:talk 348:Trim 339:talk 301:talk 282:talk 262:talk 247:Note 237:talk 219:talk 211:Keep 169:FENS 143:news 106:logs 80:talk 76:edit 54:talk 545:to 443:DGG 354:DGG 256:-- 253:. 183:TWL 610:– 601:) 582:• 535:) 518:) 514:| 497:) 467:) 450:) 423:) 402:) 380:) 361:) 341:) 303:) 284:) 264:) 239:) 221:) 163:) 108:| 104:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 82:| 78:| 56:) 48:. 614:. 597:( 561:) 554:( 531:( 510:( 493:( 463:( 446:( 419:( 398:( 376:( 357:( 337:( 299:( 280:( 260:( 235:( 217:( 187:) 179:· 173:· 165:· 158:· 152:· 146:· 140:· 135:( 127:( 124:) 114:( 112:) 74:( 52:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
Stifle
talk
08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams
List of one-, two- and three-letter rivers and streams
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
delete
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
Dinoceras
talk
19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.