Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrography of Cúcuta and North Santander


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hydrography of Cúcuta and North Santander

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is unsourced since October 2006, I tried to find sources, but I didn't find anything else than a reference which has 3 lines over this topic, it is not enough for an own article. Gambler1478 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article sure needs help. A "department" is like a state level entity in Colombia. We do of course have List of rivers of Colombia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It does seem to be an eminently notable topic, per WP:GEOLAND: the hydrography of the entire state. It'd be a shame I think to lose it, unreferenced as it is. My reaction is weak keep it, unreferenced as it is. Curious to see what the WP Geography folks have to say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added two inline citations, and some WikiLinks--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this topic has not enough encyclopedic notability to has an own article. At es.wiki, this topic has just a section in the state's article. --Gambler1478 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but en.wiki is of course the biggest, by far, and has many articles that other language versions don't. I'll keep a watch on this. Certainly won't stand in the way if the consensus is to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've altered my bolded !vote above to reflect that it is obviously a weak keep... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The article as it is is indeed not good enough for Wikipedia, and unsourced. The topic itself is certainly notable, but with a different title; Cúcuta is the capital of the department of Norte de Santander and thus shouldn't be in the article title. Hydrography of Norte de Santander would be a good new article, if sourced well, that is. The other departments can have articles like that too, if they are nicely set-up and references added. Found this deletion request via the WikiProject Colombia link. Tisquesusa (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has many Columbian and Venezuelan rivers mentioned. I added links to several of them, but I was disappointed by those rivers as they were unreferenced or had unimportant food references. The article still needs copyediting, which I added as a tag, after doing some myself.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note If kept, the rivers do have images in Wikimedia Commons to be added to this article.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC) *Keep I have added two inline citations, and some WikiLinks. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate !vote - user has already put in their "keep" argument above. This is just a comment. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - It's just a big exercise in content-forking. Two sentences on the stated topic and then paragraphs on eight rivers. Six of those rivers have articles of their own and they all cover essentially the same info.Glendoremus (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems that there is no consensus on this article.Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 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.