Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pkhista 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pkhista River

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

River does not appear to have received coverage in anything outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors and apparently a few maps. Does not qualify under WP:GEOLAND, though it apparently does exist. KDS4444 (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not doing any harm as is, and GEOLAND is sufficiently vague so as to leave it open to interpretation. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously important. That there are few English language sources on this Georgian river does not make it unimportant. Or make it disappear. In fact, this is a WP:Systemic bias in Wikipedia we ought to overcome. Presumably there are Georgian language sources, but I am unaware of a handy Rosetta stone for that one. I don't know how much Google interacts with Georgian media, if at all.

WP:GEOLAND provides: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. [Emphasis added.] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another unwarranted nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with User:Dr. Blofeld. We could be editing instead of needlessly defending articles from pointless How many angels can dance on the head of a pin discussions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And that is why I dislike the Cult of Deletionists. Did you see the Mary Anne MacLeod AfD? It is heinous! L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a river. See GEOLAND. See this study. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Study". Moscow University Geology Bulletin. 29. Allerton Press: 37. 1974. Retrieved January 31, 2017. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All aticles on rivers are kept; I'm not sure how nom thinks it doesn't meet GEOLAND. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, what I am getting here (other than a load of hostility) is that all rivers are notable regardless of whether or not any information about them can be found beyond their mere existence/ coordinates on a map. This appears like a contradiction to what the guidelines are at WP:GEOLAND, which specifically state that information beyond existence and coordinates are required in order to warrant an article on a geographic feature, and that actual sources are required to do so (rather than hypothetical ones in a foreign language, which may or may not exist— there is no article yet on the Georgian Wikipedia on this river to help substantiate this). The only Google Books hit on this river is this very Wikipedia article, and of the 15 hits on Google anywhere for this river (in English) most appear to be mirrors of Wikipedia. If I am misinterpreting the text of WP:GEOLAND then I politely ask the other editors involved here to explain that to me (rather than offer insults, which are unlikely to move this conversation forward). Also please note that I am not suggesting that this river "disappear" (which is ludicrous)— I am suggesting that it is not notable, and that its mere existence does not make it notable (in the same way that every street in every small town in American is not likely to be notable, or every building in that town, or every steeple, or every person, or every fence post). While I am not opposed to the idea of possibly redirecting the subject to another namespace (maybe some river into which it flows), unless someone can provide some kind of evidence that the river is actually notable (and doesn't merely exists) then I have to stand by my nomination and ask others to make a better effort than has been shown above to demonstrate how it is notable and therefore warrants this article. "All articles on rivers are kept"— the logic there is the basic fallacy on which the rest of the Keep votes seem to rest... I can make a river out of a hose and a 5-gallon bucket of water, and give it a name, and some coordinates, but that will not make it notable. A less knee-jerk justification feels needed here, one that is not based on the words "all" and "always", which are ways to railroad a more polite and more nuanced conversation. KDS4444 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to be a hostile bully. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rivers have a threshold for notability just like everything else in wikipedia. This doesn't meet that threshold. "Presuming" that there are meaningful references somewhere doesn't count.Glendoremus (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above keep rationales and particularly the reasoning of [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]. Lepricavark (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Passes WP:GEOLAND. That's sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2017 (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.