Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valea Pietrei Mici 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 keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Valea Pietrei Mici River

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason this article was flagged for deletion indicating that in does not meet notoriety conditions. The Wikiproject Rivers specifically indicates that there are no such criteria applicable to rivers and that there is no minimum size for a river to qualify for deletion. I would kindly request you to delete the tag which is incorrect. Afil (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major geographical features like rivers tend to be notable. A Google search indicates that sources are out there to verify that the river is real, but they are not in English. As for dicdef, the article is a stub for future expansion when an editor gets to it. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This "major geographical feature" generates 5 hits on Google. All of them from wikipedia. That such features "tend to be notable" does not mean this one is. Policy is not about whether the river is "real" if it isn't notable. It isn't. There is no assertion of notability of any kind and no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you did a google search of "Valea Pietrei Mici River." Most of the sources are in Romanian (as the river is located in Romania, this shouldn't be a surprise).  The word "River" is not Romanian.  A google search of "Valea Pietrei Mici" shows 102 hits. --Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And searching minus Wikipedia comes up with 73 hits.  Corvus cornix  talk  00:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Geographical features such as rivers are notable. Just a quick g-search shows at least two secondary sources in Romanian (it is in Romania after all). . --Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Both of those sources mention "Valea Pietrei Mici" in passing. At least one is a blog. Where is the notability in reliable sources? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the first one, a whole paragraph is dedicated to this subject, that's more than a "passing mention" and I don't know if the 2nd one is a blog. Here's another more than "passing mention" secondary source .--Oakshade (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In that "first one" where a "whole paragraph" is supposedly about this river, I just don't get it. The name is mentioned once, in the second of four sentances. Several other proper nouns pop up. With no translation and no knowledge of reliability, I cannot see how that is "substantial coverage" in "reliable sources".
 * The new source you list again uses the name once, in with a laundry list of other proper nouns. Again, we are left to guess as to whether this is "substantial coverage" in "reliable sources".
 * Mdsummermsw (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, besides these secondary sources, sometimes common sense applies to inherently notable topics such as towns, mountain, rivers, etc, even if the New York Times didn't write 20 articles about those topics. Even WP:NOTABILITY has a "common sense" clause and  WP:OUTCOMES specifically mentions rivers as one of these. --Oakshade (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If it's a real river then it's obviously notable. I think finding someone who's Romanian would help here.  If only someone would invent a big piece of paper with hills and roads and rivers drawn on it so we could check on this kind of stuff.  Nick mallory (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless proven that it doesn't exist. Geographic features are by default notable.   Corvus cornix  talk  23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a river guy, come on. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment like towns rivers fall under it exists so it's notable, I personally prefer a merge to Timişul Sec de Jos River. Secret account 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why are people scrabbling around looking for sources when there are already two in the article? Sources don't have to be online, and don't have to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources must be verifiable. See WP:RSUE. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, I have read WP:RSUE and nothing there says that non-English sources are not considered verifiable: "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality." Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I was referring to "Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
 * Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
 * Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation."
 * To me, this one sentance article could easily be merged and redirected with no loss. As it is, the article is pretty much a dead end, with nothing I've seen hinting that there is more content to come. Looks like the article, such as it is, is going to end up as a "keep". My next comment seeks to solidify the "why" into coherent policy or a guideline. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason "why" is geographical features such as rivers are considered of encyclopedic value. They might not be to you, but they are to scientists, geographers, scholars or any other person interested in this topic.  These articles make this online encyclopedia stronger, not weaker.  That is what is so good about Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia.  As it's billed as "The sum of all knowledge," there is unlimited bandwidth for useful information.  And I take issue that this articles is a "dead end."  What towns does it run through?  Does it supply water to any of them?  Does it provide power?  What is the human and geological history of this river?  Over time, likely Romanian speakers or people with knowledge on the topic will add to it.  Wikipedia is a never ending process and it takes time, sometimes years, for articles to really take shape. --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "The Valea Pietrei Mici River is a tributary of the Timişul Sec de Jos River in Romania." Not familiar with the Timişul Sec de Jos River? "The Timişul Sec de Jos River is a tributary of the Timiş river in Romania." Don't know the [Timiş river]? "The Timiş River or Timişul Sec River is a tributary of the Ghimbăşel river in Romania." And the [Ghimbăşel river]? That's a big one: "The Ghimbăşel River or Ghimbav River is a tributary of the Olt River in Romania. It is formed at the junction of two headwaters: Pârâul Mare and Pârâul Mic." What towns do they run through/supply water/provide power/geological history? You'll never know from the dicdefs here. The article is a "dead end" because all of the information in these four articles could easily be dumped into Olt River article with no loss of information at all. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite! Should articles like this one expand (but to do that they first have to be KEPT!!!!!!!!), one could learn on which side (left or right) are its tributaries, where is its mouth, what pH the water has, what mineral content it has, etc. Moreover, each river may have its own (unique) biology: fish and crustaceous species, aquaphile insects, etc. You could also learn what the VERY NAME "Valea Pietrei Mici" means!!! And a lot more usefull stuff! Got that?!? Raborg (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please also comment at Village_pump_%28policy%29. While I have some problems with this as it is being proposed, it seems to be widespread enough to get some sense of concensous. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd like to say that there should be some minimum notability, say, a river of one kilometer, but until that time, I'd defer to consensus and keep all real rivers. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See User:Bearian/Standards. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Is it snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearian once again. :-)  (jarbarf) (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. To nominator: Read the following articles for God's sake: Encyclopedia and Wikipedia. So, imagine this, you`re a f*king Geography student/teacher/whatever or you simply want to know what the f* this "Valea Pietrei Mici" you`ve seen mentioned on a postcard/in a book/tattoed on your girlfriend`s ass/etc. What do you do? To fellow contributors, I apoligize for my my foul mouth. Btw, check out the "attention seeking methods" part here. Raborg (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your comments on the subject. I was looking at the reliability issue and I am familiar with what wikipedia is and is not. The tattoo on your girlfriend's ass could be explained by reading the article that "Valea Pietrei Mici River" could redirect to. Failing that, you might ask her. In Romanian. The concensous here sure seems to be "keep". I invite all of you to watch User:Bearian/Standards and/or my talk page for attempts to specifically outline something ranging from the proposed "all geographic features are notable" to "regular notability rules apply". - Mdsummermsw (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2007 (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.