Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thon (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 per WP:NGEO and outcomes for named geographical features. Part of a series of possibly disruptive AFDs. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thon (river)[edit]

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

~~No notability inserted and none likely to be able to be claimed. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [1]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As noted on the article's maintenance tag, the corresponding French-language article is much more developed and cites sources. We generally don't delete rivers here. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rivers as significant geographic features are kept. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Rivers normally have enough authentication and history of documentation to pass WP:GNG, even small ones.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Dolovis (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND; nominator failed WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2013 (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.