Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juruá River (Rondônia)


 * 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. As concerns the mass nomination, which is controversial. These articles can still be renominated individually.  Sandstein  21:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Juruá River (Rondônia)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a very small waterway in a sparsely populated area of Brazil. Maps (including the one cited in the article) are the only references to the river's existence that I have been able to find, and WP:NFEAT suggests that this is not sufficient to establish notability. Given that there is a highly significant Juruá River (also in Brazil) with its own article, I think that this little creek may be better covered by a hatnote there than by this stub. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  22:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  22:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: Based on the feedback received thusfar, I'm expanding this proposal to include the following rivers which have a similar level of significance and article development. I have tried to review each with the care any article deserves (and perhaps especially because there are some articles in the List of rivers of Rondônia that are clearly worthy of retention), but I invite review. Generally I excluded any article with content beyond mention of a park/forest/preserve that overlaps with the watershed. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment While I can't speak Portuguese, judging by context this news clip is about the subject river, since the larger Rio Juruá doesn't go through Rondônia. (If any Portuguese speakers happen upon this AfD, please let me know if that's correct.) That being said, there's not a lot of information about this river, so what does exist can probably be safely merged somewhere. (Not entirely sure where; its source river has about as little information, and while the Ji-Paraná River has more information it also has more single-source stub tributaries than would comfortably fit in the article.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the news clip was about Juruá River, the reporters mentioned Acre (state). Also I must register that in lusophone WP we don't have any article for a Juruá river in Rondônia. Best regards,  Slade    ☯  10:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. In that case, I'd say delete (or at least merge) the article, with no prejudice to recreation if better sources ever exist/are found. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You suggested that Ji-Paraná River has a high number of tributaries currently the subject of stub articles. Could you tell me if there's an easy way to find them? I don't have a method more efficient than comparing against a map. Cheers —jameslucas  ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  16:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * List of rivers of Rondônia is organized by drainage basin, which is how I discovered that. Though I didn't look at other rivers, so I doubt this is a problem specific to the Ji-Paraná. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It looks like virtually all of the tributaries of the Ji-Paraná have stubs that are empty of content beyond the river name and a lat–long coördinate (Preto River (Rondônia) has an amusing but unsourced anecdote and a couple other articles have a barely-relevant reference about the Jacundá National Forest, which already has its own article). I wonder if the best approach would be to delete all of these stubs and add to the article for the Ji-Paraná River a two-column table with the tributary names and mouth coördinates? A partial survey suggests this might work for nearly all the minor rivers in Rondônia, even those not feeding the Ji-Paraná. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  14:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Looking for a little more participation on this conversation. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith!
 * Delete (vote on the set below) Natural features are not automatically notable and this one is lacking coverage. Reywas92Talk 19:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ji-Paraná River, the main stream.  This small tributary of a tributary etc.,etc.,etc., of the Amazon has no evidence of independent notability.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's worth preserving the coördinates in a table at Ji-Paraná River or just let them go? —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  02:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , No, I don't see any value in doing so. Any more than I see value in an article or stating co-ordinates of the stream I have in my backyard that is a small tributary of a tributary etc.,etc.,etc., of the Connecticut River. If there really isn't anything to say other than; "you can find this on a map", then it doesn't help our readers in any meaningful way. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we remove the huge list above? I don't think these are self-similar enough to be bundled together with the original nomination, especially in a low-attendance AfD such as this.  They are all sub-stubs from the same Brazilian state that were autocreated and have been left in a useless status, but they appear to possibly belong to multiple larger basins.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which aspect of these articles strikes you as insufficiently parallel, but I can say that you're not wrong that defining the scope to the rivers of Rondônia is arbitrary. A quick skim through rivers in the neighboring state of Acre, for example, turns up a non-trivial number of similar stubs. I admit it would be neater to expand the scope of this proposal fit a single river system, but finding an obvious boundary short of the whole Amazon basin may be difficult.
 * I'm not particularly expert in the AfD process, but I know that anyone watching WP:Rivers of WP:Brazil would be aware that this batched AfD is happening, so my (naïve?) assumption is that the low number of comments is indicative of the uncontroversial nature of the proposal and not a lack of visibility. Of course, I welcome your further thoughts. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  16:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , while they're all equally in need of redirects, the target(s) of those redirects appears different. These all ultimately wind up in the Amazon but they should be redirected to the smallest reasonable non-stub article for one of that river's  tributaries.  E.g., the original Juruá River should be redirected to Ji-Paraná River while at least three others should be redirected to Guaporé River.  The Ji-Paraná River and Guaporé River are both notable enough for their own articles but they never meet over their courses so redirecting their tributaries has to be similarly separate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, you're right that it's worth noting that the paths of the redirects should reflect the paths of the rivers themselves and that the work of creating the redirects will need to be done with care that each correctly follows the flow, so to speak. Conversely, I think the decision to delete the stubs in favor of redirects can be bundled for efficiency. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄  18:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , on that basis, I'm willing to say Redirect all to the smallest applicable notable downstream river. It is a not-inconsiderable project to take on. Good luck.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect/delete all It is a massive waste of time to discuss these individually. These are rapid-fire bulk creations of 12-word sentences (these are certainly not "articles") sourced only to a map. WP:NGEO: "This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." These should not have been mass-generated in the first place. Reywas92Talk 05:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the expanded proposal, nine days after the initial AfD, is a complete mistake. It's going to take awhile to go through all of these, and they're only related because they're river stubs in Brazil (unlike our previous procedural nom, which were all related because they were all sourced to a single database that was "unreliable" for establishing notability.) This should be a procedural keep for all of the rivers nominated after the initial nomination. Total screw up here. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As an example, I have added sources to the Candeias River, which now clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Will it be a featured article? No, but it's clearly notable. I suspect a number of these other rivers will be as well, but it will take some time - a couple others I looked at looked to be duplicates and will need to be cleaned up, but a bulk AfD is clearly not the place for this, especially nine days after the initial AfD. SportingFlyer  T · C  04:05, 2 February 2020 (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.