This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
Afil, could you please explain to me which notability guideline applies to this article, and point me to the part from which you conclude that this is notable? Thank you. -- Pepve22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the criteria fixed by Wikiproject Rivers the project intends to list all rivers. It specifically mentions that there are No notability criteria applied for rivers. There is no reason to single out the Iavardi River and not thousands of other rivers with similar entries.
There is a project where this issue has been discussed and a decision has been taken. This decision has been applied by all contributors until now. I consider it is not acceptable to raise objections for a single article which is linked to other articles. The issue raised changes the entire approach which has been accepted by the project team.
First of all, can you please provide me with a link to these fixed criteria? I can't find them. Secondly, there is no reason not to single out a certain article, as every article must follow policies, guidelines and other criteria on its own. (Also, those thousands of other articles on rivers are no reason to have this one.) Thirdly, I do not object to the WikiProject Rivers approach, it would indeed be unacceptable if I did that here. I might object to it once I know where it is described though, but that is off topic.
And please, refute my logic. One of the reasons for deletion is "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline." The only relevant guideline (to my unknowing eye) is the general one, from which I quickly conclude that this river is not notable.
I strongly disagree. There is a Wikiproject Rivers. The problem of notability has been raised in the discussion page of the project. The decision was that there are no rivers too small to be included in Wikipedia. This is posted on the project's discussion site. I consider it incorrect to ask for the deletion of an article which is part of a project when it totally complies to the guidelines of the project.Afil00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afil is 100% correct. All rivers and similar geographic features have always without exception been considered notable at WP by repeated decisions at AfD, along with all inhabited places such as cities towns and villages. Established WP policy for years, still consistently supported without exception. See WP:COMMON. If anyone would like to change the policy, feel free to try, but my advice is that success is extremely unlikely. They will all be unfailingly contested, so there is no point placing a speedy or a prod tag. Nobody can prevent you placing an AfD, but it is likely to be a very quick keep. DGG (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please, pretty please even, answer to my concerns? I asked for a link to this supposed discussion about the notability of rivers, as I can not find it. This conversation will greatly benefit from informing all parties, I think. Also, my logic (above) is still open to refutation. (And... where in WP:COMMON does it state that rivers are inherently notable?) -- Pepve21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not formally bound by precedent though, so if you want to test whether the river is notable, use AfD. That's the only place in WP that can give an actual determination, and it is done by consensus, and I have no more voice than anyone else. I give you my interpretation of it in as best good faith as I can. There is no point arguing over a prod. anyone can remove a prod for any reason good or bad. The place to argue is AfD. DGG (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought arguing could also be done without the parties being motivated by an AfD. I'll try that then, I would really like to finish this discussion. Thank you. -- Pepve18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
