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.
This article is unsourced since October 2006, I tried to find sources, but I didn't find anything else than a reference which has 3 lines over this topic, it is not enough for an own article.
Gambler1478 (
talk)
20:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
It does seem to be an eminently notable topic, per
WP:GEOLAND: the
hydrography of the entire state. It'd be a shame I think to lose it, unreferenced as it is. My reaction is weak keep it, unreferenced as it is. Curious to see what the WP Geography folks have to say.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I think this topic has not enough encyclopedic notability to has an own article. At es.wiki, this topic has just a section in the state's article. --
Gambler1478 (
talk)
21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Perhaps but en.wiki is of course the biggest, by far, and has many articles that other language versions don't. I'll keep a watch on this. Certainly won't stand in the way if the consensus is to delete.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The article as it is is indeed not good enough for Wikipedia, and unsourced. The topic itself is certainly notable, but with a different title; Cúcuta is the capital of the department of Norte de Santander and thus shouldn't be in the article title.
Hydrography of Norte de Santander would be a good new article, if sourced well, that is. The other departments can have articles like that too, if they are nicely set-up and references added. Found this deletion request via the WikiProject Colombia link.
Tisquesusa (
talk)
03:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep This article has many Columbian and Venezuelan rivers mentioned. I added links to several of them, but I was disappointed by those rivers as they were unreferenced or had unimportant food references. The article still needs copyediting, which I added as a tag, after doing some myself.--
Dthomsen8 (
talk)
21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Note If kept, the rivers do have images in
Wikimedia Commons to be added to this article.
Delete - It's just a big exercise in content-forking. Two sentences on the stated topic and then paragraphs on eight rivers. Six of those rivers have articles of their own and they all cover essentially the same info.
Glendoremus (
talk)
07:04, 8 February 2017 (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.
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.
This article is unsourced since October 2006, I tried to find sources, but I didn't find anything else than a reference which has 3 lines over this topic, it is not enough for an own article.
Gambler1478 (
talk)
20:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
It does seem to be an eminently notable topic, per
WP:GEOLAND: the
hydrography of the entire state. It'd be a shame I think to lose it, unreferenced as it is. My reaction is weak keep it, unreferenced as it is. Curious to see what the WP Geography folks have to say.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I think this topic has not enough encyclopedic notability to has an own article. At es.wiki, this topic has just a section in the state's article. --
Gambler1478 (
talk)
21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Perhaps but en.wiki is of course the biggest, by far, and has many articles that other language versions don't. I'll keep a watch on this. Certainly won't stand in the way if the consensus is to delete.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The article as it is is indeed not good enough for Wikipedia, and unsourced. The topic itself is certainly notable, but with a different title; Cúcuta is the capital of the department of Norte de Santander and thus shouldn't be in the article title.
Hydrography of Norte de Santander would be a good new article, if sourced well, that is. The other departments can have articles like that too, if they are nicely set-up and references added. Found this deletion request via the WikiProject Colombia link.
Tisquesusa (
talk)
03:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep This article has many Columbian and Venezuelan rivers mentioned. I added links to several of them, but I was disappointed by those rivers as they were unreferenced or had unimportant food references. The article still needs copyediting, which I added as a tag, after doing some myself.--
Dthomsen8 (
talk)
21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Note If kept, the rivers do have images in
Wikimedia Commons to be added to this article.
Delete - It's just a big exercise in content-forking. Two sentences on the stated topic and then paragraphs on eight rivers. Six of those rivers have articles of their own and they all cover essentially the same info.
Glendoremus (
talk)
07:04, 8 February 2017 (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.