Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suvarnavathi Reservoir

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suvarnavathi Reservoir

[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)

Orphaned, possibly travel guide-like article with zero reliable (or even secondary) sources; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 05:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved to Suvarnavathi River and expanded during the AFD (which is not prohibited), by me (see below). If outcome is "Keep", closer should put old AFD notices at Talk pages of both Suvarnavathi Reservoir (now a redirect with categories) and at Suvarnavathi River. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Karnataka. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 05:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment The dam is likely notable if it can be sourced. The article as it stands could jsut as well be TNTed. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one listed reference on the article is unfortunately 404'd, and upon deeper searching, I was only able to find one potential source at https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2019/jun/10/two-reservoirs-in-karnataka-may-go-dry-as-tamil-nadu-builds-dams-1988203.html with a few mentions of the reservoir's depletion in 2019, but it focuses more on a government's dam-building rather than touching more on the article subject, so it would be hard to pass it off as anything but a trivial mention. Other sources only mention the Suvarnavathi River, which does not have its own article either. It does not seem like this article has any significant coverage beyond the one source. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 23:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as revised. I expanded the article with more references about the reservoir and dam (including a civil engineering assessment that the dam is likely to fail). Addressing the lack of an article about the bigger topic of the Suvarnavathi River, I chose to expand this article to be about both, and I moved the article to the bigger topic's name during the AFD. Moves during AFD are unusual and can be confusing, but are not prohibited. Here, I judge that the topic of the river is clearly notable, and that the reservoir and dam can be covered within that. The added reference might have sufficed for all to agree that the reservoir and dam topic is notable, but that evaluation is mooted by the editorial decision to cover that topic within the larger topic of the river. I hope this just saves time and bother, and leaves Wikipedia better off. (Pinging User:Liamyangll and User:Mangoe who may wish to comment upon the revised arrangement.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sensible move by Doncram. Likely more sources in local language but what is included is sufficient to pass GNG. Rupples (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2023 (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.