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 no consensus. There appears to be no consensus at this time between those that wish to keep versus merge, but certainly not anything here to result in delete. Therefore, further discussion should take place on the talk page, with regard to merger or not. -- Cirt (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tvinde waterfall

[edit]

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

Obscure, if "spectacular", waterfall. No substantive, reliable, third-party coverage. Brief mentions in guidebooks appears to be all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article does not say what river it is a part of, but I'm sure whatever it is, there is an article on that river. Being just a line like it is, it should be merged into the article on that river. Sebwite (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does any source (reliable or otherwise) in ((find)) appear to state this -- making it difficult to identify where to merge it, let alone add that information WP:Verifiabley. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The river is the Tvinna, according to this, but there is no article for that.

Perhaps then it may be worth renaming this article to to the name of the river and making it about the river. Rivers generally are notable, and it could remain a stub until it is expanded. Sebwite (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the waterfalls pictured in that link appear to match that of the Tvinde waterfall. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot easily rely on pictures for information since they are taken at all different angles under a variety of conditions, so two pictures of the same waterfalls may not appear alike. Variances in natural conditions can make a waterfall and its surroundings appear different at different times. Sebwite (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying rock-structure should however be the same -- but isn't (stepped versus unstepped). This can more clearly be seen from Yngvadottir's picture below. Also even if Tvinna is the correct name, the maps I've seen would seem to indicate that it's a fairly short tributary that merges almost immediately into a larger river (and it is that river that is more likely to be the notable topic). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I've said in my comment below, there are 2 different waterfalls called Tvinnefossen. (Tvindefossen and Tvinnefossen are both correct for this one; Norwegian dialectal variants.) This one is on a stream rather than a river - its name is the Kroelvi. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Voss article, where the information would easily fit. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of subsequent developments I'd be very comfortable with Keep as a separate article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Maps lists it as 'Waterfall Tvindefossen'. It appears that the closest locality is Granvin, some 20km away. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has the waterfall as only 12km from Voss, which is a much bigger place than Granvin. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Different waterfall from Tvinnefossen in Hopland. This is the one the article is about, although it is also called Tvinnefossen. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~, either as a freestanding article or merged into Voss~~. It is a well known attraction and was painted by Johan Christian Dahl, though sadly that's one of his paintings we don't have on Commons. There is a well populated Commons category and I have added that, info, references, and external links. There are also scads of YouTube vids, which I left out. I'm not sure what the applicable notability guidelines are for a waterfall, but this one does get mentioned a lot. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) - On searching newspapers, I found a complete article on it in Bergens Tidende. Apparently in 2001 it was internationally famous as a fountain of youth and liquid Viagra. Reference added, plus a follow-up ref from the end of the same year mentioning its great popularity. I think that puts it over the top as an independently notable tourist sight (though you have to drink the water to get the 10 years taken off your age and the improvement in sexual performance, sorry, YouTube viewing doesn't count). And notability doesn't expire. (There was also a hotel there in the 1890s, but I can't find a better source for that than this.) So I have struck my acceptance of merging the content into the Voss article as an option. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as nom) into Voss, per above discussion. Still no indication "that sources address the subject directly in detail", so still no WP:Notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I don't know what the applicable standards are for waterfalls. It has its own entry in at least two online directories of waterfalls. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not yet checked newspapers. When I did, I found an entire article on it. Modifying my statement above accordingly. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would have agreed with the nominator originally, but with the additional sources uncovered during the AfD (nice work Yngva) I think that we have a perfectly reasonable stub on a sufficiently notable landmark. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:31, 26 May 2011 (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.