Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weiherburgbach


 * 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 delete. Missvain (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Weiherburgbach

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article claims this is a river. It is less than a mile long and judging by the picture I don't even think this qualifies as a brook or a stream, maybe a drainage ditch? Does not pass WP:GNG. Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. A brook or stream is also a (small) river. If it provides the zoo with fresh water, it must be more than a simple drainage ditch. The article lacks sources, however it seems to be a translation from the German Wikipedia so sources should have existed at least once before. --Cyfal (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete "so sources should have existed at least once before" No idea where this comes from, the German Wikipedia is not 100% based on sources. This creek is not even visible on the map and I don't see notability here. Reywas92Talk 07:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:HOLE. Geschichte (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GEOLAND. The "river" only appears to be mentioned in maps and GPS databases. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Inn (river), the appropriate target as clearly indicated in BEFORE: If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. Djflem (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose the merged of unsourced content to another article. If you actually did a BEFORE search (as in before you copied and pasted your standard "failed BEFORE" vote), you would find no sources for the content of this article. At less than a mile long, this is just too insignificant to be mentioned in the Inn River article. Also, I would like to note that what you copied and pasted says AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change, so WP:BEFORE doesn't clearly indicate a target.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * delete A brook needs more than mere geographical detail to be notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2021 (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.