Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroaebe 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. Per WP:MAPOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Caroaebe River

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notability GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's a river that is verified to exist. Per WP:MAPOUTCOMES. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have notified the page creator of this discussion. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Geographic entities such as rivers are held to be notable. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I strongly believe in Wikipedia's goal of being a gazetteer per WP:5P, and so I agree with the rather loose requirements laid out by WP:GEOLAND for named natural features. However, despite what's stated above, there is no presumed notability for named features on a map: GEOLAND requires that "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" for named natural features, and "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." The only source given is a map, which sure enough has the "Rio Caroaebe" on it - so its verified, but that's only enough to ensure its place within the List of rivers of Roraima article. My searches have turned up nothing but wikimirrors (and confirmation from NGA GeoNames that this is a recognized name), so I'm not convinced this is deserving of a stand-alone article as yet. I'm not voting delete, however, since I don't believe that I am able to do a thorough search given my limitation to online sources and my inability to speak Portuguese. Also, because deep down, I hope for the article to be kept. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2017 (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.