Talk:Norfork Tailwater

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arkansas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled[edit]

Hi, I just tried to categorize this page in "Arkansas Rivers" but it still lists the "uncategorized" tags at the bottom. I am a noob. How do I remove that? Pcrh 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Deletions[edit]

While I understand the article can be improved, much (not all) of what you deleted was legitimate info about the river. I was actually in the process of editing it down to a more reasonable article and adding the note about the flooding when you just reverted to the current stub. If you are going to take it upon yourself to improve an article (and I agree, it needed improvement), you might at least consider filtering what is there for value before you delete--or consider adding something of value to the article yourself. Respectfully, Pcrh (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reversions removed the citation notes. You also replaced the rather useless image of your hand. What I deleted was quite simply unsourced WP:OR and promotional in tone. If you wish to add material to the article, then do so using reliable sources. The article should be made a redirect to Norfork Dam and any sourced, non-promotional material merged there. Vsmith (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the info about places to stay on the river was promotional? OK, though it was useful info. What about the number of the Corp of Engineers to learn when the river will be high because of electrical generation? Promotional? The useless picture of my hand was a picture of a fly I was holding, an imitation of an insect that lives on the river. Again, I thought this was useful info and relevant to a river whose main economic benefit to the state/area is the sport fishermen it attracts. Re unsourced material, wiki prefers to delete this rather than find the source? Seems again discretionary as to what is "unsourced" information. I don't expect wiki requires a cite after every single sentence (this is not the standard for other articles, at least). This is your game, clearly, but I would respectfully observe that, by the standard you imposed on this article, many other articles on wikipedia (even exemplary articles) should be hacked too--lots of info without a cite. And you also kept uncited statements in the stub you left, which seems inconsistent with your reasoning for the other deletions. How exactly do you, as arbiter of this article, decide which unsourced material stays and which unsourced material goes? If there are no cites, why not delete the entire article? Also not sure why this article should be merged with the dam article. The river and dam are two separate items. If you want to delete the article completely and redirect to the dam, I guess it would solve all your problems! Go wikipedia! Pcrh (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]