Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakunta 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The result was withdrawn & WP:SNOW.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nakunta River[edit]

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

I proposed deletion as "I can find mention of this river in a handful of books, but existence =/= notability. I can find no descriptions of the river, not even where exactly it is. Without anything to say about the river, there is no purpose in having the article." Deprodded as "Geographical features are notable".

As I can't expand it and I don't expect anyone else can I still think we should delete the article. I don't think it will ever have any meaningful content. Fences&Windows 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, as there not a snowball's chance in hell of this being deleted, despite the lack of sources. Fences&Windows 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with you. Articles ought to have content. I doubt this AfD will get very far though, because there is a substantial number of people who believe every real place on Earth automatically needs an article, and these people almost invariably get their way. Empty, unexpandable microstub wastes of time and space are unfortunately what happens when "must have an article cos it exists" meets "can't have an article because there's nothing to say". Reyk _YO! 03:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Right you are, there is indeed a consensus that every major geographic feature is notable, and if this is called a river in some good source, it counts. But this does not apply to every geographic feature. We have deleted a number of creeks and streams and such, when there's no additional factors for notability. Reyk, we're not as over-inclusive as you seem to think, and the deprodder was abbvreviating things a little. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying, I don't understand the point of having a single-line article that merely states the existence of the thing in question and cannot conceivably be expanded, ever, because there's simply nothing to say about it. Reyk _YO! 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: A potential solution is to collapse those stubs into articles such as Rivers in New Brunswick as a compromise; otherwise, stubs they stay! - BalthCat (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is, as a geographical feature, notable, per consensus and per common sense, IMO. That it "cannot be conceivably be expanded" sounds like crystal ballery to me. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few seconds on google comes up with this map among other sources, with a precise location Latitude: 15° 11' 56" N Longitude: 83° 46' 40" W. As it appears to be a "major geographic feature", in all likelihood, more work would yield more. John Z (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is hard to find information about it. Not entirely sure which river Google Maps means. I'm not sure if this source is saying it feeds the Caratasca Lagoon or just the system of lagoons that includes that one. There seem to have been Nicaraguan refugee camps in the area during the civil war ([1], [2], [3]). Some of the other books might have something vaguely interesting to say, if the snippets were a little larger. --Chris Johnson (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On Wikipedia, defined geographic features have always been inherently notable, and because of that, it's one of the few instances where stubs are tolerated. Thus, there is room for rivers, lakes, islands, peninsulas, etc; and inhabited towns, whether incorporated or not. The theory is that, even if such an article currently lacks content, someone in the world will write more about it (and geographic features will be there tomorrow and the next day). In this case, it's 71 miles long [4], not exactly a babbling brook. I've added that fact and source to the article, and encourage others to throw in what they have learned. Mandsford (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no good reason to consider this river nonnotable when major geographical features such as rivers are always so treated. Not sure why you say that it's unexpandable: there's surely plenty of information locally about it, and a local photographer could easily get good images. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford's rationale. I added a few more details, using this map showing its location.--Milowent (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Not sure why you say that it's unexpandable". Because in good faith I looked for information about it and could find nothing other than it existing. At least we know where it is now. This article is a prime example of why we shouldn't have bot-created stubs, as they contain little or no information and aren't properly verified. Editors are resorting to primary sources, i.e. maps. and iguide; the airy expectation that secondary sources can be found to expand it doesn't match with Chrajohn's experience. BalthCat's suggestion to merge this kind of stub is a good one. Fences&Windows 23:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you nominated the article, which is now getting an amount of attention that it otherwise would not have. I have no respect for the "deadbeat Dad" approach to Wikipedia, where someone creates a stub (usually as part of a large group of "thisisastub" pages and then leaves it to someone else to improve it. And sometimes the automatic notability rule gets pushed to ridiculous extremes, especially when it comes to inhabited locations -- many a time I've seen someone try to argue that their neighborhood is inherently notable, sometimes even a street -- but a river is notable, as long as it really is a river and not simply a brook, stream, creek, minor branch, etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to a book that references the river's outlet location. Serious question, is a map really a source different that a book that describes in words what a map shows, e.g, the location and outlet of the river?--Milowent (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A river. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any admin wandrin' by, please close per WP:SNOW! Fences&Windows 16:34, 10 November 2009 (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.