- 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. Being WP:BOLD with this close, but there is a complete Keep consensus that the river is indeed notable as a result of inter-language references. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88( talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dos Papagaios River ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:V. Apart from the map provided as an external link, I can’t find any reliable evidence suggesting this river exists Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I have added a source of the river's existence from the Portuguese Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - there are lots of JSTOR sources that mention the river (all in portugese, calling it Rio dos Papagaios). I can link them but you'll need JSTOR access to read them. The mentions of existence mainly crop up in articles talking about parrot populations in Parana. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A geographically significant verifiable river.---- Pontificalibus 08:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A verified river is notable. -- Doncram ( talk) 10:23, 31 August 2019 (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 keep. Being WP:BOLD with this close, but there is a complete Keep consensus that the river is indeed notable as a result of inter-language references. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88( talk) 17:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Dos Papagaios River ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:V. Apart from the map provided as an external link, I can’t find any reliable evidence suggesting this river exists Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 Talk (please {{ ping}} me in replies) 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep I have added a source of the river's existence from the Portuguese Wikipedia. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - there are lots of JSTOR sources that mention the river (all in portugese, calling it Rio dos Papagaios). I can link them but you'll need JSTOR access to read them. The mentions of existence mainly crop up in articles talking about parrot populations in Parana. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A geographically significant verifiable river.---- Pontificalibus 08:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A verified river is notable. -- Doncram ( talk) 10:23, 31 August 2019 (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.