Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palgeocheon

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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Palgeocheon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Palgeocheon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find much evidence that Palgeocheon is a notable river. Then again, it may be in Korea, but I cannot find any English articles covering it. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 18:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 18:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

If it does exist, it is probably worth merging into Geumho River or List of rivers of Korea. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly even speedy delete under A11 I applied WP:BEFORE, but I failed to see any sources that talks about it. I looked at the given citation and it's an encyclopedia where people can create articles about things, just like Wikiepdia. Looks like it's made up, which would mean it violates A11. Nevertheless, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. INeedSupport ^:3 18:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Searching for 八莒川 (as given on the grandculture.net site) in gbooks gets three results, but machine translation is not coming up with anything intelligble. SpinningSpark 19:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep it appears to exist and have a name and there's a source to show it exists and based on what Spinningspark says, there's likely other sources out there that anglophones just have trouble understanding. This is pretty firmly in the zero harm is done in keeping and time is wasted by deleting class of articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't bring me into it, I implied no such thing. If that's what I thought I would have !voted keep. The source you link is apparently user generated and therefore not RS, possibly even created by the same person as our article. The gbook hits could mean anything; part of another word or a completely different context. Without a Korean speaker to assess them they mean nothing. Having said that, it likely does exist, but the picture shows it is a ditch+ so finding sources will be hard. SpinningSpark 23:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Spinningspark, I never said keep per you, I said there are likely other sources based on what you say. I was drawing my own conclusions from your comment, and I apologize if you took it as my saying you were supporting keep. Anyway, on the substance, this AfD is a waste of time. People generally don't make up creeks and streams and the like, and if it is on ko.wiki (which based on the recent PRODs it is...) it very likely exists, has a name, and can probably be found on some Korean language map and other sources. That is enough for us to keep a North American stream/creek/river/whatever. It should be enough for Korea as well. That, and this is literally doing zero harm to anyone in the state it was in, so I have no clue why we're here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I want to pull this AfD because after checking the Korean Wikipedia (it did not have an article on Palgeocheon, but it did have one on Geumho River, where Palgeocheon is one of its tributaries) as well as searched on Google in Korean, I learned that 팔거천 apparently does exist as a tributary to 금호강. TonyBallioni is right; this AfD is a waste of time. I am embarrassed for that and for being too hasty, so forget about deleting it. Nevertheless, I feel that this article could be redirected to Geumho River, where it lists Palgeocheon as one of its tributaries. Keep it or redirect it, Palgeocheon should be included. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 02:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep just in case this needs another keep vote - needs significant cleanup, but it exists and there's English-language references to it being a stream in Daegu. SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I don't understand why this was nominated for AfD, other than it is about a Korean river on the English Wikipedia site, which doesn't seem to be a valid reason. If you look at the reference, there is a photograph of the river with a sign in the picture displaying the river's English name. I can't see a stronger reason for keeping an article about a land feature. PhobosIkaros ✉ 21:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: This article may be of interest for anyone here who speaks Korean. I don't, so it's difficult for me to see how much this stream is actually discussed in the article. I don't think it seems notable, but this may help advance notability depending on how much the subject is discussed within. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I am surprised that this discussion is still ongoing. I proved with my previous edit that the river exists, and even asked for this AfD to be closed. Maybe it deserves its own article, or maybe it should be merged with Geumho River, but this tributary should be on Wikipedia. End of discussion. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 00:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Agreed! This article should never nave been nominated for deletion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2019 (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.