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The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn, no outstanding delete !votes; non admin closure).
StAnselm (
talk) 06:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)reply
No delete - Что есть на стати столько плохого, чтобы ю было нужно удалить. Энциклопедичная значимость можно не большая но статья уже нет никакая заготовка, это полноценная статья. Правда, перевод сделал Google переводчик, но во всем остальном статья хорошая. Я сделал всё что было в моих силах но перевод пусть улучшить кто нибудь другой.--
Toмa646 (
talk) 17:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Google translate (from Russian): "What on earth would have so much wrong with that u had to be removed. Encyclopedic significance can not large but the article is no longer any storage, it's a full article. However, the transfer did a Google translator, but otherwise good article. I did everything that was in my power to improve but the translation let somebody else."
Ansh666 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Статья удержалась на русской и чешской википедии. Этот достаточное доказательство энциклопедической значимости.--
Toмa646 (
talk) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Google translate: "Article hold onto the Russian and Czech Wikipedia. This is sufficient proof encyclopedic significance." Можете ли вы использовать английский язык? Не многие люди понимают русский здесь. Я использую Google Translate.
Ansh666 21:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Query - on what basis is this creek notable?
Stalwart111 10:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Yeah,
Vejvančický's answer is probably sufficient enough for me. Weak keep, then.
Stalwart111 07:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete- This has an unsourced article in
Czech, but nothing to me indicates that this is nothing more than a
run-of-the-mill stream...
Michaelzeng7 (
talk) 17:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Striking !vote to reconsider per Ansh below.
Michaelzeng7 (
talk) 20:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Per
WP:NGEO, "Named natural features [which includes streams] are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." I can't judge if it meets this (it claims to be a tributary of
Metuje, but isn't listed on the sole source given there).
Ansh666 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Okay, per below, keep, I guess.
Ansh666 06:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, valid and verifiable geographical information. The stream is also called Maternice or Maternička, see
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4]. The village of Zbečník was founded over the valley of Zbečník stream in the 14th or 15th century
[5]. The information could be possibly merged and redirected to the main article about the village, but deletion would be a bad and counterproductive solution, unhepful to this encyclopedic project and its readers. --
Vejvančický (
talk /
contribs) 05:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Move to close - nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes.
Stalwart111 05:15, 20 August 2013 (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.