Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Čivićevac


 * 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. sufficient consensus  DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Čivićevac

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Was prodded with the following rationale: ''Is not a river, but rather a creek or a canal, depending on the source. Can't find elementary facts about it (e.g. its length). Lacks notability.'' The prod was declined. Still, the fundamental problem remains, and that is failure to meet WP:GNG, illustrated by the fact that there are no reliable sources from which basic facts (such as e.g. length, source and mouth) could be established. GregorB (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a source to the article: the official website of the town. I admit that the creek may not be independently notable, however, it is a verifiable geographical information. It could be redirected and mentioned in the article about the town. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:5 says that Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This is a stream (not a creek or a canal) that is listed in The Gazetteer of the Republic of Croatia. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a bad argument... The Gazeteer also lists coordinates, thus providing at least one of the "basic facts" I was referring to. Still, it is my understanding that WP:GNG trumps WP:5: Wikipedia indeed "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers", but these would normally still have to pass the general notability threshold. I say "normally" because there are some gray areas: are all settlements, geographic features and minor planets inherently notable? Frankly, I'm not sure either way. GregorB (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think that WP:5 trumps GNG, myself. (Hence all the tiny places that have dedicated articles.) These five pillars are the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates . --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it apparently does (settlements), and sometimes it apparently doesn't (minor planets, see WP:NASTRO). Geographic features could be said to lie somewhere in between. This quote from WP:NASTRO is also interesting:
 * However, unlike Earth-based geographic features, arbitrary astronomical objects are unlikely to be visited or run across by a general reader of Wikipedia. Therefore, unless an astronomical object has significant coverage in the media or published sources, the likelihood that a general reader would choose to search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is quite low. This is not a matter of dubious predictions; it is just common sense. Therefore, unlike Earth-based geographic features, the existence of an astronomical object, or even the fact that it has been named (see below) does not guarantee notability.
 * This is a good argument in favor of inclusion in this particular case. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep - Per Notability (geography) and per Wikipedia's Five pillars, whereby the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Query: should GregorB's "This is a good argument in favor of inclusion in this particular case" be taken as a withdrawal of the nomination? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought about withdrawing the nomination, but I'm still not fully convinced and I'd like to hear more opinions. If not, this is going to be closed as "keep" anyway. GregorB (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2012 (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.