Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fagul Rusului 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fagul Rusului River

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor tributary. Zero reliable sources in English, be it on the web, on Google scholar, or Google books. I cannot read Romanian so I cannot establish if there are any sources in that language. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Geographical features such as rivers are generally considered notable and there does seem to be some significant coverage found on the web --Oakshade (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

According to prevailing rules all rivers are considered notable. Sources for geographic features are generally maps, not books. The river can be found on all detailed maps of the area.Afil (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. What about the GNG? I believe that has to be applied first, and maps don't seem to be stated directly. Also (not to overly debate semantics), it is a tributary and not a main river. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have my reservations about a project that's created articles about more than 8,000 rivers of Romania, most of which are indeed pretty minor, but I don't think it makes sense to single out this particular river. A wider discussion might be helpful, but let's not pick just one for elimination. And this isn't a case of WP:WAX, either: the exact same arguments could be applied to Aluza River, Amara River, Arefu River, Argintul River, Argova River, and on and on. - Biruitorul Talk 02:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I found it via the random article tool, so I was not aware of the sheer number of minor rivers (and some may even be as small as streams). I would like to participate in that discussion, if it takes place. However, we could set precedent with what we do here. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The nominator is right to question the standalone notability of this particular river, and I think the utliamte solution would be to merge such entries on the tributaries into the more notable river of the basin (in this case, Topliţa River). But this would require a more in-depth discussion, I believe. Perhaps a mass nomination? Dahn (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A mass nomination would probably be best. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural withdrawal, if possible. I have started an RFC at the article's talk page, and if deleted said RFC will not be able to reach a consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2011 (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.