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. Missvain ( talk) 23:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Aldranser Bach (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

This is clearly not a river, maybe a stream. Regardless, it does not pass WP:GNG because sources do not exist. I also question the factual accuracy of the article since it claims that the "river" is inhabited by peacocks which are not native to Austria. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 22:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, wholly unsourced for 10+ years (and I couldn't find anything useful in minutes). Note that it interwikilinks to de:Schintertalbach, and the talk page there indicates that the thing (whatever it is called) exists, but does not indicate any GNG notability. If we're not even sure about the name, nuking it is the only way to be sure. — Kusma ( t· c) 16:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I've added sources that at least show that you can be shure about the name. -- Cyfal ( talk) 13:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Your sources do not establish notability. You added three. The first two were just Google Maps. The third one has only one paragraph that mentions the brook (I think that's what this is). The translation reads Below the municipal garbage dump in Innsbruck, the Aldranser Bach flows into the Inn on the right bank. It takes up the Lanser Bach in its middle course. The latter was not re-examined in 1967 and 1968 because its quality status was determined separately in October 1962. In the meantime, the situation has certainly not improved due to the rapidly growing population density in the catchment area. The findings showed that both streams above the village settlements are practically pure, little influenced surface waters (quality classes I and I-II), but below these settlements have already exceeded the permissible pollution level (quality class III), and that even outside the summer tourist season. So, we know it exists and has poor water quality due the fact it is next to a municipal garbage dump (something you didn't even bother to mention in the article when you added the source), but verifiability does not equal notability.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply

My aim was answering Kusma's worries that a river with that name does not exist. And the peacocks seem to live in the park of Ambrass Castle, see here. -- Cyfal ( talk) 20:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Neither Kusma or I dispute that it exists. What we dispute is: 1. It's a river. Clearly, it is either some type of stream, brook, or creek. 2. That it is notable enough to have an article.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply

It is obviously a (small) river, please read the beginning of the river article: "Small rivers can be referred to using names such as stream, creek, brook, rivulet, and rill." Kusma disputed the name of this small river, not the existence, therefore my adding of sources. -- Cyfal ( talk) 21:37, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete While this clearly passes WP:V the hurdle is WP:GNG nothing in either the English or German article suggest it will pass notability. My Google book search {"Aldranser Bach" -wikipedia} found a few minor mentions, that also support WP:V but fail to get it over WP:GNG Jeepday ( talk) 14:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Inn (river)#Tributaries, the appropriate target as clearly indicated in Wikipedia:BEFORE: If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem ( talk • contribs) 07:25, May 17, 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge- This little stream so insignificant that its even in the same league as the other tributaries listed there. Since almost all information in the article is unsourced, there's really nothing to merge anyway.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply

  Agree, too small to be worth mentioning. — Kusma ( t· c) 19:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge or keep, sources are given in the the article, and the various points of WP:GNG are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyfal ( talk • contribs) 21:43, May 22, 2021 (UTC)
  • @ Cyfal: you cannot vote twice, please strike one of your two votes.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Struck my comment above (see here). Hint: Inn (river)#Tributaries is a simple list without any additional informations. If this article is going to be deleted, I suggest that the google map references of Aldranser Bach are incorporated as references for the Aldranser Bach in Inn (river)#Tributaries. -- Cyfal ( talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
• delete Another brook for which there is no real claim to notability. Mangoe ( talk) 03:20, 28 May 2021 (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.