Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bella River


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bella River

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Too obscure to be notable, with no claim to notability. According to the article this is a tributary of the Caşin River, which is in turn a tributary of the Râul Negru river, which is in turn a tributary of the Olt River. Mapping every single sub-sub-tributary of a river, regardless of a claim to notability is not what we need IMHO. The editor who created this article has created dozens or even hundreds of similar articles, but I only nominate this one for discussion at the moment. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. All rivers are notable, even if they are in Romania. The article has two references, which is more than a lot of other Wikipedia articles. --Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes states that MAJOR geographic features can be kept. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep According to the Rivers Project there are no limits for the size of the rivers to define the notability of a river. Does the Random Fixer Of Things want to change the rules? Afil (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Request If this is a formal policy, could you please link to it (I did look for such a policy but could not find one). If this has just been decided by WP:RIVER editors then maybe they would like to join the discussion (it would still be good to get a link to where the decision has been reached). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Geographical features are notable per established consensus. Please see this December 2007 AfD for another Romanian River stub: AfD for Valea Pietrei Mici River, which ended as keep. Also, please review WP:OUTCOMES. It is not policy, but it summarizes working consensus and what usually happens when certain topics come to AfD. If you want hard and fast posted rules, you won't find them in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not "rules" but proper consensus rather than individuals stating there is consensus, and you sure will find plenty of those WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:MOVIE. Trouble is, a lot of people want to push their own opinions rather than work within consensus. And that usually involve claiming that there is a hidden consensus that matches their opinion, or relying on a subset of recent discussions as an alternative (the latter is pointless because no two articles are alike). You don't hire 10 people in a row that meet a certain criteria, and then hire the next person just because you hired the last 10. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.  Sting_au   Talk  03:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That says major geographical features, does that mean all rivers or just major rivers? Also, this is an extension of the "we kept a bunch before so let's keep this one", it would be nice to debate the merits of this one rather than just rely on WP:OCE. "Common outcomes" is useful to decide whether to list something in the first place, but just quoting it should not be used as a shortcut to avoid discussing it. We are discussing a specific article here, not just quoting pages. Do you have any specific thoughts on the article? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete What more could one say about this "river"? This will remain a stub forever. (Probably it is not more than a stream anyway.) All these dinky "rivers" should be listed as tributaries of the larger ones. It's not Notable on Google except for one classified ad. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All geographic locations (Rivers, Lakes, Mountains etc are inherently notable per current consensus VivioFa teFan   (Talk, Sandbox) 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please indicate where this was discussed and consensus reached. Not just where a bunch of rivers were kept, but where the question "should all rivers be notable" was actually debated and consensus reached. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Why do you think that it will remain a stub forever? Surely there are sources out there to expand it — we shouldn't make such presumptions, and I'm not crystalballing because the article already has enough sources.  Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response There are but two printed sources given; they undoubtedly attest that this "river" has a name, but they do NOT attest that it is Notable. The author of this "article," if we may stretch the definition a little, is probably using those sources to list every river in Romania, no matter how insignificant. Was it the site of a battle? Did it suddenly change course as the result of a massive earthquake? Did a Romanian poet write an ode in its honor or an Austrian composer a waltz? This is not the Danube we are talking about. I believe WP should take a stand on this one. This rivulet is simply not Notable. (If it is, there should be some facts brought forth.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A river does not have to be iconic like the Danube to be notable, but speaking of the Danube, the Olt River system feeds it and is a pollution source. Tributaries and branch rivers tend to matter that way. Even small streams attract settlements and industry, contain distinct ecosystems, set territorial boundaries, and have watersheds and flood plains to be dealt with. It is unlikely that the two books cited are the only sources in existence for this river. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well, if you wanted us to take a stand, I think we are. WP:OUTCOMES. matt91486 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Consensus has found time and time again that geographical features such as rivers are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Response The nutshell definition of Notability is "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Two mentions in lists of geographic names and one mention in a classified ad is not significant. WP is not a dictionary — we all know that — and I submit that WP is not a mere gazetteer either. This contributor seems to be adding every dinky trickle in Romania to the Romanian Wikipedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're all familiar with that oft repeated line from WP:N, but what is not often repeated is from the core stipulation of WP:N (above the "nutshell" box) which provides that it "be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."  Consensus has in fact found time and time again that geographical features like rivers are some of those common sense exceptions and there is no evidence, either in this AfD nor anywhere else, that consensus has changed.--Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a user's interest in Romanian rivers on a different language's encyclopedia can be held against him in a debate on whether or not this particular river is notable. matt91486 (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:OUTCOMES. --Kannie | talk 20:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Vote void per WP:CANVASS
 * Comment Copy and pasted from WP:OUTCOMES: "Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable". I would think that a river, tributrary or not, still counts as a river, and therefore meets wikipedian notability standards. I would also like to say that "creek" is more subjective than you think it is. In Missouri, where the Missouri river becomes a tributrary (!) of the Mississippi, there are plenty of creeks. In California, where there is no "notable" rivers, there are nonetheless plenty of them, some of them the size of a Missourian creek. --Kannie | talk 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Riposte I will grant you that a creek may be significant. Ballona Creek is significant; it drains a major metropolitan area, was seminal in the development of the Westside of Los Angeles County, and is a major contributor to the civic life of Culver City, California. I could provide the Sources. But nobody has provided any Sources for the prominence of the Bella River, and it is really up to the author of the article to do so. (As for the lack of rivers in California, I give you the San Joaquin River and the Sacramento River, not to mention the Los Angeles River, which is death itself when it floods.) Sincerely, and with much good cheer, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, the author did provide two references, so the article isn't completely unsourced. You just happen to want more. I agree that more content would be preferable, but there is no prejudice against things that are currently stubs. matt91486 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep all rivers on Wikipedia.--The Dominator (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to the actual river it flows into, I agree with the comments on not needing a article for every stream.--Him and a dog 16:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Motion to close This AfD has gone for more than 5 days. --Kannie | talk 16:52, 19 January 2008 (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.