Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamborasi 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. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 08:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tamborasi River

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

I think this article is useless and should be deleted. There is no evidence that this is a real river. The citation is not even in English.2601:640:4000:8CD0:889E:B6B6:2491:3F9E (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 02:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well, there isn't really any restriction on non-English sources, and the river does seem to exist per tourist guides (which of course are not reliable sources). So the crux of this discussion should really be whether there is enough verifiable information on this to meet WP:GEOLAND and if not where this should be merged to. ansh 666 02:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ansh666, is this your AfD or the anon's? The history only shows your edit. --Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs cannot create pages, so I completed the nomination by creating the AfD page. The statement was originally posted on the talk page of the article. And I just noticed, I didn't copy the signature correctly. Fixed. ansh 666 03:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a geographical feature, seems to be a popular international tourist destination as is repeatedly referred to as the "shortest river in the world." There's sometimes a misconception that "tourist guides" are not reliable sources. Per WP:RS, there is nothing to restrict travel guides as reliable sources as long as there is editorial control over its content. Besides the coverage in the article, it wasn't hard to find recent sources on this topic too. [1][2] --Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable both from sources and inherently as part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer, and is verifiable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:33, 20 December 2015 (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.