Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fărcădin 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 redirect to Galbena River (Strei). Taking into account the verifiability issues highlighted at the end. A merger from history is possible if good sources are found; if not, a RfD is possible. Sandstein 12:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fărcădin River[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am using this as a test balloon. I've been hitting a LOT of river pages as I do work on converting pages to {{Infobox river}} and have come across a large number of river pages like this that don't seem to have anything notable about them. I am nominating this particular page as a test balloon of sorts to see what makes a river notable. Seems to me articles like this fall under WP:MILL but am curious what others think. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting the articles of Romanian rivers, I consulted the Wikipedia rules for Rivers. It was stated that any river in the world, regardless of its size, qualifies for an article. There are no other conditions which should be used for screening the rivers. Consequentely, I have written all the articles regarding Romanian rivers. I find it completely unacceptable that after a Wikipedian has spent a significant amount of time to write articles which comply to prevailing Wikipedia rules to have all these articles deleted. Does anybody have any respect for the work of other wikipedians? The problem should be discussed by the active members of WikiProject Rivers. Other wise, the question arises, why do we have WikiProjects who define what has to be done in a certain area when persons who are not concerned about that WikiProject change the rules.Afil (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Afil: first, remember to sign your messages (ironic considering your user page). Secondly, this was a request for a discussion about what is notable. Not sure why you so quickly took it as some personal attack. Third, when you edit Wikipedia you do so at your own risk. This idea that you spent so much time on it and worked so hard is not relevant. Not to mention, how can you say you worked so hard? The article is one sentence long... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the length of the article, it is the information which is contained in the box which is important. As detailed maps are difficultly available it takes time and the satelite maps rarely identify the names of the rivers, getting the information is not as straightforward as you seem to think. Why don't you try to get the information about one of river, for instance a river which flows into lake Issyk Kul. Then talk about efforts in getting the information. Afil (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Afil: You are completely missing the point. I'm sorry you spent so much time on it but that doesn't indicate anything about notability. So far all you have done is complain about how much work you put into this, this is a discussion about notability. I would encourage you to refresh yourself with WP:GNG. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Afil: also please review WP:HARDWORK. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Galbena River (Strei), the river it apparently flows into. The only available evidence that this river exists is a line in this tourist brochure about Hunedoara county, see "Densuș". It is not mentioned in Anexe 7 PlanNationalManagement - vol.III (which has an enormous number of Romanian rivers), where it would have been around page 430. Galben(a) has code RW4.1.117.14.11, Fărcădin would have code RW4.1.117.14.11.X, but the only tributary I see mentioned is Breazova River (Strei) (code RW4.1.117.14.11.4). Right now we don't even know whether it's a right or left tributary, or its exact location (probably near the village Fărcădin). But I think it's good to have a proper discussion about notability criteria, like the one just started at WT:WikiProject Rivers#River Notablity, because the problem is not limited to Romania (8000+ river articles!). Not every tributary of the Wupper is notable either IMO. I wonder where Afil found that "any river in the world, regardless of its size, qualifies for an article", because I couldn't find that on WP:NGEO or WP:RIVERS. Markussep ^Talk 13:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is also listed in NGA's Geonet Names Server [1] which gives its location as 45° 36' 00" N, 022° 59' 00" E placing it downstream of Hațeg rather than near the town of Fărcădin. Nothing on Google maps at that location, but there is a small stream visible on satellite imagery flowing into the Galbena. Just a bit more on confirmation of its existence, no comment on whether that makes it notable or not. Kmusser (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the rule is easy: WP:GEOLAND. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. All I can find at this moment is that Densus is located on the river from this source: [2] I'm finding it hard to search since not all sources use the half-crescent above the a (I'm not worldly enough to know its name) and because of the declension of the word "river" in Romanian. SportingFlyer talk 17:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, let the discussion play out on WT:RIVERS, and see what happens, then revisit this. That's the proper way to achieve consensus, not trying to stealthily pick articles off one by one. Smartyllama (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartyllama: for the record, there was absolutely no attempt to stealthily pick articles off one by one. I nominated this article as part of the discussion at WT:RIVERS, a thread that I ALSO started. The point of nominating this article, and only nominating one, was to start the conversation. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are we having the discussion in two places? The discussion there is perfectly fine. But one discussion is sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I would say that any actual river is notable enough for an article, but this seems to me to be no more than what we in English would call a stream, and they're not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the barrier for notability of rivers is extremely low; Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia. In this case, I'm not convinced the river exists; the town of Fărcădin is on the Galbena River, but Google maps finds no river of that name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.