Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Brook (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Brook (river)[edit]

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

Very minor stream. The article appears to be entirely original research. I have searched for reliable sources but found none, so I believe that this article fails the general notability guidelines in that the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Delete unless reliable sources are found. Jeremy (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's more than a stream — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpxpress (talk • contribs) 18:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose possible this is the page with the best possibility of being expanded on the whole of Wikipedia! It is a huge river, not a stream. If you think this is a stream, then go and delete Blackburn Brook and Burbage Brook and others too, as they are smaller! Requesting this for deletion is the most offensive thing anyone has ever done to me, as I really love this river and can expand it a lot! Same with the Bowman Brook! 91.107.205.247 (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)— 91.107.205.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strongest oppose possible, agree with everything above 100%. GeorgeGriffiths (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. I've also found that sources are scarce. The only map to feature its name is the OS, the only other websites featuring it are Wikimapia with the entry added by the OP its WP counterpart and a 2 year old Sheffield Forum post about the lack of crossings. The width and flow of the waterway are low and no history is linked to it. It fails on the notability factor and the article appears to be original work with no references. Voting whilst unsigned is improper when an account is available. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Seems to be original research. Edison (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFF might well need to be deleted, but that is irrelevant; there is no claim to make this a notable waterway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 4 March 2011 (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.