Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pkhista River
Okay, what I am getting here (other than a load of hostility) is that all rivers are notable regardless of whether or not any information about them can be found beyond their mere existence/ coordinates on a map.  This appears like a contradiction to what the guidelines are at , which specifically state that information beyond existence and coordinates are required in order to warrant an article on a geographic feature, and that actual sources are required to do so (rather than hypothetical ones in a foreign language, which may or may not exist— there is no article yet on the Georgian Wikipedia on this river to help substantiate this).  The ''only'' Google Books hit on this river is this very Wikipedia article, and of the 15 hits on Google ''anywhere'' for this river (in English) most appear to be mirrors of Wikipedia.  If I am misinterpreting the text of  then I politely ask the other editors involved here to explain that to me (rather than offer insults, which are unlikely to move this conversation forward).  Also please note that I am not suggesting that this river "disappear" (which is ludicrous)— I am suggesting that it is not ''notable'', and that its mere existence does not make it notable (in the same way that every street in every small town in American is not likely to be notable, or every building in that town, or every steeple, or every person, or every fence post).  While I am not opposed to the idea of possibly redirecting the subject to another namespace (maybe some river into which it flows), unless someone can provide some kind of evidence that the river is actually ''notable'' (and doesn't merely ''exists'') then I have to stand by my nomination and ask others to make a better effort than has been shown above to demonstrate how it is notable and therefore warrants this article.  "All articles on rivers are kept"— the logic there is the basic fallacy on which the rest of the Keep votes seem to rest...  I can make a river out of a hose and a 5-gallon bucket of water, and give it a name, and some coordinates, but that will not make it notable.  A less knee-jerk justification feels needed here, one that is not based on the words "all" and "always", which are ways to railroad a more polite and more nuanced conversation
— User:KDS4444, 02:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:GEOLAND||WP:GEOLAND (Wikipedia:Notability)