- 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. ✗ plicit 00:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Aschach (Rott) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a river, possibly a stream or a brook. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO, the only source is a map Rusf10 ( talk) 04:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, too small and no GNG coverage. Even the next larger Rott (Inn, Rott am Inn) should probably be just mentioned in a list. — Kusma ( t· c) 08:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I've expanded the text and adding more secondary sources to demonstrate significant coverage per
WP:GNG and
WP:NGEO. --
Cyfal (
talk)
12:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can't see the book source. But the BUND/news sources only mention this body of water, not describe it, and are not enough for WP:GNG. WP:NGEO also suggests "information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography", which generally is a much better approach for small rivers that separate stubs. — Kusma ( t· c) 12:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The BUND/news sources describe the river in the same sense as in the Rhine's article the sentence Among the largest and most important cities on the Rhine are Cologne, Düsseldorf, Rotterdam, Strasbourg and Basel: The related neighborhood also belongs to the content of any river article. It is not the case of a trivial mention of the river, like f.i. the band Three Blind Mice described by WP:GNG. Concerning the suggestion to include something in a more general article on local geography: Your citation of WP:NGEO continues: a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river, so this does not apply to Aschach (Rott) where more than only name and location is available. -- Cyfal ( talk) 20:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Again voting for keep;Comment see WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG for the "rules": the article contains some more (sourced) informations than a simple mentioning. -- Cyfal ( talk) 11:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- See here why text above is struck. -- Cyfal ( talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per
WP:GEOLAND. While this may be a
Named natural feature
—as GEOLAND requires—it is also required thatinformation beyond statistics and coordinates
beknown to exist
. This not being the case, let GNG take its course. —— Serial 18:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC) - Delete per SN's concise explanation of how this article does not meet the requirements of GEOLAND. Sources seem to be insufficient to meet the requirements of GNG. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable per SN. Looks more like a drainage ditch than a river, stream or brook. Certainly the brook across the street from where I grew up was more substantial, and since it runs through an historic estate, there's plenty of places that mention it. Some maps even give it a name, but it's no more notable than the Aschach. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - trivial, of local interest and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek ( talk) 02:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Embarrassing, actually. The largest paragraph starting "Near Großkarolinenfeld, ..." is obvious fill having *very* little to do with this purported river. The refs just happen to have the local stream's name 'Aschach' in it. (Yay Google!) There is a stream near my house that wends its way for more than 30 miles before joining a river. I've just checked, and no we don't have a page for it. (>10 other pages do share the name, tho) Shenme ( talk) 05:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ✗ plicit 00:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Aschach (Rott) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a river, possibly a stream or a brook. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO, the only source is a map Rusf10 ( talk) 04:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 04:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, too small and no GNG coverage. Even the next larger Rott (Inn, Rott am Inn) should probably be just mentioned in a list. — Kusma ( t· c) 08:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I've expanded the text and adding more secondary sources to demonstrate significant coverage per
WP:GNG and
WP:NGEO. --
Cyfal (
talk)
12:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can't see the book source. But the BUND/news sources only mention this body of water, not describe it, and are not enough for WP:GNG. WP:NGEO also suggests "information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography", which generally is a much better approach for small rivers that separate stubs. — Kusma ( t· c) 12:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- The BUND/news sources describe the river in the same sense as in the Rhine's article the sentence Among the largest and most important cities on the Rhine are Cologne, Düsseldorf, Rotterdam, Strasbourg and Basel: The related neighborhood also belongs to the content of any river article. It is not the case of a trivial mention of the river, like f.i. the band Three Blind Mice described by WP:GNG. Concerning the suggestion to include something in a more general article on local geography: Your citation of WP:NGEO continues: a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river, so this does not apply to Aschach (Rott) where more than only name and location is available. -- Cyfal ( talk) 20:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Again voting for keep;Comment see WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG for the "rules": the article contains some more (sourced) informations than a simple mentioning. -- Cyfal ( talk) 11:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)- See here why text above is struck. -- Cyfal ( talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per
WP:GEOLAND. While this may be a
Named natural feature
—as GEOLAND requires—it is also required thatinformation beyond statistics and coordinates
beknown to exist
. This not being the case, let GNG take its course. —— Serial 18:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC) - Delete per SN's concise explanation of how this article does not meet the requirements of GEOLAND. Sources seem to be insufficient to meet the requirements of GNG. LEPRICAVARK ( talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable per SN. Looks more like a drainage ditch than a river, stream or brook. Certainly the brook across the street from where I grew up was more substantial, and since it runs through an historic estate, there's plenty of places that mention it. Some maps even give it a name, but it's no more notable than the Aschach. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - trivial, of local interest and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek ( talk) 02:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Embarrassing, actually. The largest paragraph starting "Near Großkarolinenfeld, ..." is obvious fill having *very* little to do with this purported river. The refs just happen to have the local stream's name 'Aschach' in it. (Yay Google!) There is a stream near my house that wends its way for more than 30 miles before joining a river. I've just checked, and no we don't have a page for it. (>10 other pages do share the name, tho) Shenme ( talk) 05:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- 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.