Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaso 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The result was nomination withdrawn. (WP:NAC)  " Pepper "   @ 12:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Kaso River

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was created more than a year ago and no content was added ever since. The article itself contains one sentence, with no reference proving its notability. I've done a quick search on Google and cannot find much information apart from the fact that it is a real place. I propose deletion per WP:N. Also, a lot of articles in List of rivers of Indonesia are similar one-sentence articles on non-notable rivers, so if this one gets deleted, those may need to be checked as well.

BTW, I arrived at this article via Random Page and I am by no means knowledgable in this subject. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 08:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Places are definitely notable. Please check out WP:N and tell if there is any specific guideline the article fails to meet. There is a reference in case you hadn't noted.- Ravi My Tea Kadai 11:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires significant coverage. As far as I can see, the atlas proves that it exists, yes, but not necessarily notable. I admit that I am not familiar with the policies on places and locations, but does it say that we need a separate article for every place that exists? The article content, "Kaso River is a river in southern Java, Indonesia." is already covered by List of rivers in Indonesia as Kaso River is listed under the 'Java-Southern Coast' section in that list. So the article doesn't give the readers any new information. And as far as Google searches go, there isn't anything else to add. No notable events, geography or anything. So redirect it to the list or something. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 11:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:N as real place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't resist insulting everyone involved in this discussion, including myself. We voted "keep" without knowing what we wanted to keep! We said "Duh, its a river - keep it". But there are several rivers by this name in the area, and it is not clear which of them the article is about. Whichever it is, the vote is to keep it. There is a largish river by this name, visited by tourists, some pictures, nice waterfall, a bit to the west of the present coords. I will arbitrarily re-vector the article. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep "A lot of articles in List of rivers of Indonesia are similar one-sentence articles on non-notable rivers." Once again lack of content is being confused with notability. The length of an article does not make a subject notable. The subject matter and number of reliable sources do. This river admittedly doesn't have many sources available on the web because southern Java is not exactly an Internet hotspot. But there are enough to verify its existence. "I've done a quick search on Google and cannot find much information apart from the fact that it is a real place". Exactly, try reading Notability (geography). There might also be a different spelling to this or something... Also called Ci Kaso♦  Dr. Blofeld  18:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep based on standard "inherent notability" argument. But... there are several Ci Kasos in West Java. It is possible that this article combines information on more than one. For a while, I thought these notable waterfalls were on the one that is up for deletion. Sadly, they are on another Cikaso, one that has a good cc-licensed picture. And a not so good one Maybe someone will start an omnibus article for all of them, to clear up the confusion. Not sure what the best title would be. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand to counter systemic bias. Notable (and will be covered in sources), but I can't speak bahasa.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles needs some clarification on some points but the river is notable. Stormbay (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A named geographic feature is notable, and this one definitely has enough sources to stay as an article.  " Pepper "   @ 23:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Alright, it seems that the article has been expanded, with more information and references. Now I agree that it should be kept. Can someone close this Afd?Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 00:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 December 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.