Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastshore Estuary

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. Kurykh 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastshore Estuary

no reliable sources - possible OR - could be a hoax - google returns 6000 hits, but none of them indicate its existence Chris! _ct 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good sources are provided. There is certainly an estuary there and the Eastshore State Park but all of the google hits appear to be wikipedia mirrors. Nothing in google scholar, news or books. Does appear to be a made-up-name for part of a real geographic feature - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this a hoax? There is obvious notability. I see plenty of attention to the estuaries in this subregion, website, newspaper and book as a start, so the notability standard is met for the article's existence. The question I see is the name choice. And geographically, the name makes perfect sense for this article topic. Is there a better choice for the name? If yes, use it, otherwise this seems like the best name for an article about a notable topic. SaltyBoatr 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is there a thing called the "Eastshore Estuary" ? We can't just make up names here for things. No sources I can find, and it seems none of the links you've provided, mention such a thing. A single good source that even mentions "Eastshore Estuary" may be enough. The links mention estuaries but not this one. Is there anywhere a source that claims this confluence of creeks forms an estuary ? The article claims that "Eastshore State Park" is within the estuary but the park's website does not mention this. Check out the map at the bottom of the park website... no mention of an estuary at all, just a park adjoining SF bay - Peripitus (Talk) 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is this thing. Certainly. I provided three cites[1], [2] and [3] and when I went checking yesterday I found many others. You actually are using a straw man argument, (perhaps unintentionally). You argue that the name of the thing is wrong, therefore the thing is wrong. But logically, that does not follow. This regional estuary is clearly distinct and notable, even if the name is variable. I think Eastshore estuary would be a better name than Eastshore Estuary. SaltyBoatr 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The estuary in question is absolutely notable. It already has a name: San Francisco Bay. We can't just go around inventing names that have never been used before for arbitrarily defined geographical areas that have never been considered distinct. None of the citations you have say anything about an Eastshore estuary. -Nogood 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like it was invented by the article creator; no evidence of its existence has been provided, nor has any evidence that the term "Eastshore Estuary" was ever used anywhere before it appeared on Wikipedia. -Nogood 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment—WRONG San Francisco Bay is the estuary of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers all the other wtarways that form marshes form them tehsmelves without the help of the SF Bay's sources, Sonoma Marsh is an estaury too, but its not the same as the San Francisco Bay Estuary, fuck i mean, with that logic the whole of San Francisco Bay would be part of the Pacific Ocean Estuary wouldn't it?Cholga^talK! 23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The cited source on the article and #1 & 2 above do not use this specific phrase. The book is not searchable (e-wise as far as I can tell) so it's unsure if it actually uses this phrase also. The Ghits are interesting, as the phrase does occur, however it looks like mainly wiki mirrors and this. Would be nice to have "official" (i.e. State of California) mention/use of this term. SkierRMH 02:19, 1 November 2007 (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.