Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobiljanski potok


 * 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 -- JForget  22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Kobiljanski potok

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An unimportant brook in northeastern Slovenia. Eleassar my talk 13:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, if possible, into the article on the river it flows into. A short mention there would probably be good.  Delete otherwise, since the brook by itself isn't notable.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. All rivers are notable. It is unclear whether this should be referred to as a brook or river in ENglish. --Eastmain (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions.   —Eastmain (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Put the references in the article. Generally, one sentence stub is not really impressive, we could either merge it or expand. --Tone 16:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major geographic features like rivers are notable. Google searches indicate material to expand this article. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major geographical features such as this are inherently notable. There's room for expansion. --Oakshade (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some comments:
 * in Slovene it is usually refered to as potok (a brook). This even stands in the name.
 * I really doubt there are any serious references.
 * If there are no references, there is no room for expansion.


 * --Eleassar my talk 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But stubs are valid articles. Why does it have to be expandable to be notable? --NellieBly (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No room for expansion? What's the geographical and human history of it?  What is is a tributary of?  What are its tributaries?  Does it provide water or food to the adjacent town? To other towns/cites?  How long/large is it?  What region is it in?  Is it dammed?  That information fills a page very well.  --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a significant geographic feature. matt91486 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Additional information may be available in the Geographical Atlas of Slovenia [Geografski atlas. Slovenije], Ljubljana 1998, or in the National Atlas of Slovenia. I do not think that either work is available online, but they may be available at a research library. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep very geographical information. Z enlax  T C S 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I personally support the idea of Lifebaka and Tone to merge it with Ledava. I'll do my research in the proposed sources (Geographic Atlas has been checked before this nomination to prevent nominating anything notable) and some others but there is no point in having an article for every little brook imho (am I mistaken?) even if the questions asked above can be answered briefly. I'd be delighted if anything interesting is found but I don't expect miracles. --Eleassar my talk 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Perhaps someone thought the Kobiljanski potok is marked blue on the map. Actually it is marked red. --Eleassar my talk 23:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment2. This brook does even not have an article in the Slovene Wikipedia. In fact, it is so unimportant it has even not been mentioned in the Slovene article about the sl:Ledava river. The article only says the Ledava has several minor tributaries after it leaves the Ledava Lake behind. --Eleassar my talk 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that Slovenia WP is much smaller and missing several articles. So this can't really be a criteria. Anyway, a merge in Lenava river article will be just fine. --Tone 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)