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.
Vastly unsourced list with a handful of bluelinks but no sourcing for the many, many waterfalls claimed as 'the most important'. There's simply no way of knowing how important or even IF they truly, well, are...
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a good list. Obviously the article needs to have much less editorializing, including removing whatever waterfalls are "most important". As to whether I can find RS... I'm afraid I can't read Farsi. A couple of Google hits to questionable sources like
[1][2].
[3] is an actual news website listing it (friend says it's titled "6 waterfalls and pictures" and looks reasonably reliable).
[4] is a book titled "The book of Iranian waterfalls". Easy GNG pass.
Ovinus (
talk)
21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep
Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
Keep, obviously, the article provides a nice introduction and guide to the topic. I rather believe the editors/authors are correct in which are tge more important ones but sure, tag with call for sourcing. Having 10 blue links is fine, but none at all are required. The more important items without articles currently should be redlinks, with footnotes to sources, indicating where articles ate needed....--
Doncram (
talk)
02:15, 23 June 2022 (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.
Vastly unsourced list with a handful of bluelinks but no sourcing for the many, many waterfalls claimed as 'the most important'. There's simply no way of knowing how important or even IF they truly, well, are...
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a good list. Obviously the article needs to have much less editorializing, including removing whatever waterfalls are "most important". As to whether I can find RS... I'm afraid I can't read Farsi. A couple of Google hits to questionable sources like
[1][2].
[3] is an actual news website listing it (friend says it's titled "6 waterfalls and pictures" and looks reasonably reliable).
[4] is a book titled "The book of Iranian waterfalls". Easy GNG pass.
Ovinus (
talk)
21:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep
Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
Keep, obviously, the article provides a nice introduction and guide to the topic. I rather believe the editors/authors are correct in which are tge more important ones but sure, tag with call for sourcing. Having 10 blue links is fine, but none at all are required. The more important items without articles currently should be redlinks, with footnotes to sources, indicating where articles ate needed....--
Doncram (
talk)
02:15, 23 June 2022 (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.