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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Olifants/Doorn Water Management Area (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think this meets notability requirements. TheMrP ( talk) 19:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 21:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• This article is one of a set, the top level page being Water Management Area. These all correspond roughly to drainage basins, which are usually notable geographical features, but are not exactly that, they are actually arbitrary divisions for administration purposes. One can find papers with this subject in the title, "Drivers and barriers towards sustainable water and land management in the Olifants-Doorn Water Management Area, South Africa" from the journal Environmental Development being good for notability, but the rest are mostly government reports such as "The Classification of Significant Water Resources in the Olifants-Doorn Water Management Area (WMA17)". I don't think the minutae in the article of administrative jargon like "Primary drainage region E and tertiary drainage regions G30 and F60." is useful to anyone except those who actually work for the South African Directorate of Water Resource Classification – and they will have better references to consult. Probably, this will never be developed any further and the best thing to do with it is redirect it back to the main article, perhaps with the information on the dams merged in. But I'm not really sure either. Spinning Spark 00:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:PRESERVE. I think there are better ways of presenting this information, but it is verifiable and encyclopaedic, and deletion is not the best way of dealing with it. Let's keep it as it is until an editor is prepared to reorganise all these articles into a better format. Spinning Spark 14:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete it fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND at this time. I do see a couple research journals but not sure if they're substantive enough coverage. Also lots of primary sources. I'd be fine with a redirect, merge, or draftify if a better way of presenting the information is found - no reason not to have this information, but it doesn't merit a standalone article at this time. SportingFlyer talk 18:31, 13 November 2018 (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.