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 snowball close: rivers are notable if verifiable. `'Míkka 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iavardi River[edit]

Iavardi River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I think this river is not notable. I believe that it did not receive any significant coverage in any type of source (emphasis used to refer to WP:N). The only sources in which it seems to appear are maps. I have proposed the article for deletion before, but the prod was removed. The subsequent discussion on the talk page did not convince me that this subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Pepve 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, major geographic features such as rivers are inherently notable. It's likely there are print sources and non-English sources that can eventually be used for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does this inherent notability come from? Which policy or guideline states it? How small must a river be not to be included? And have you checked Google Maps as I did, only to conclude that the river is probably no more than two foot wide? (I'm sorry for all these questions, but this keeps me awake.) -- Pepve 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dhartung. If this was a drainage canal, maybe I'll support you. I can't find any guidelines in WP:NOTE and WP:LOCAL that says rivers should pass notability (maybe it is simply common sense that they do pass notability). Actually, if you understand Romanian, went on a library section that deals with Romanian rivers, have secured Romanian news articles then prove to me that this river is nn. Then I'll be convinced that you have a point. Alternatively, you could tag it ((geo-stub)) and wait for WP:RIVER or Romanian wikipedians to fix it (Fixing geo-stubs is hard work, trust me).--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So in order to prove non-notability of some subject from an area where another language is spoken, one has to know that language. Enforcing that would give carte blanche to all speakers of small languages... Can we not just use common sense? -- Pepve 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I just shown you the non-common sense way to prove that the article is worthy of deletion because you simply don't get it (or refuse to get it). I did not say that this would be the approach in all foreign language articles, (the best way to address such problem is to notify a neutral wikipedian that understands the article or the Wikiproject in question). Oh by the way, define small language.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll go with: "I simply don't get it." Because I really don't see the common sense in any of this. (And really, I'm not stupid enough to define 'small language'.) -- Pepve 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The others are correct. Major geographical features such as rivers and mountains are notable. It's not like this is self promotion, advertising or a violation of WP:BLP. --Oakshade 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry for replying to each and every comment, I'll pace myself after this one. Just this: from what principle, guideline or thought do you conclude that all rivers are notable? -- Pepve 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Common Sense. The New York Times just isn't going to write an in depth piece on most, if not all, rivers in Romania, yet it's still a river that provides water, food, and navigation, the source of original settlement for villages, towns and cities and being a tributary to much larger rivers. --Oakshade 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As you say Pepve, let's just use common sense. A river is obviously inherently notable. Nick mallory 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems a perfectly reasonable geography stub to me. A quick google search (in English, even) reveals that the river's valley is notable for its limestone, and the river has a well-known local waterfall. I've added a little more to the article (though it would have been a keep in any case, even without it). Grutness...wha? 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The AfD template had been removed from the article by User:Afil. Have re-added it and left a comment on the User's talk page. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note - if I hadn't commented on this personally, I'd probably have closed it as a snowball keep... any passing admin agree with that assessment and willing to do the honours? Grutness...wha? 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And indeed I feel like I'm in an avalanche. :-) -- Pepve 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused (you might have guessed that already), my google search for 'iavardi' comes up with two relevant hits: our article and a photo album of a hiking trip. How did you find the other information? And why did you add peacock terms ("is regarded as one of the most beautiful") to the article? I've learned not to use them... (I mean no offense, but accept my apologies if you're offended.) -- Pepve 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • well, the link you just provided ( google search for 'iavardi') produced 3,760 hits for me... I don't know how it only came up with two for you! You're probably right about the peacock terms, though. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And my Google search brings up 455 hits. Regardless, I'm inclined to believe that all rivers are notable. Maxamegalon2000 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long a there are reliable sources showing existence agree that all such geographical features are automatically notable. Davewild 09:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw by nominator (is there such a thing?) This is a battle I can not win, my views on Wikipedia are apparently quite different from the views of a lot of co-Wikipedians. Rest assured that you did not convert me, I still believe that such articles have no place in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not have all information, a selection has to be made. There will not be enough potential editors in the world to finish the articles if everything was selected. (And Grutness, I want your Google!) -- Pepve 11:04, 4 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.