Lebedinaya, Russia: BTW, is this a place or a river?  P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Perhaps it could be expanded with text from the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at ru:Лебединая (приток Туманной) Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 00:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A river.  I have removed the zip code because rivers do not have them.  Phil Bridger ( talk ) 09:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - If this was expanded upon with content from the Russian article, then we would have a decent article.  -- TheInsatiableOne ( talk ) 16:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep named geographic feature...(Lebedinaya is a small river in the Khasansky district of the Primorsky Territory of the Russian Federation. It is the last tributary of the Tumannaya, flowing into it from the left).  Djflem ( talk ) 11:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Geographic features are not inherently notable, we would need something more than just the name and location.  – dlthewave ☎ 13:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per @ TheInsatiableOne .  Jeffhardyfan08 ( talk ) 12:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] delete First, we don't keep articles on features just because they have a name; we've deleted plenty of them.  Second, the English article is just a translation of the Russian article, which not incidentally is peppered with tags about the lack of citations.  Third, of the two citations, the first is to (apparently) the index to an atlas, and the other fails: GMaps doesn't show this stream at all except in aerial view, and does not label it.  I did not search in Russian because the English search shows that there are other features with the same name, and I did not think I could distinguish them from one another easily, but that English search returns almost nothing; I could find only a single reference in a paper on the char (fish) that could be construed as even vaguely amounting to coverage.  I'm sorry, but I think this fails GNG emphatically.  At any rate it needs sourcing, which I haven't been able to find.  Mangoe ( talk ) 21:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify May be improved and submitted for review.  The person who loves reading ( talk ) 04:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] *Delete- Fails WP:NGEO , no meaningful references.  PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk ) 02:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - No indication of notability since there's no significant coverage or information beyond location and statistics.  Both the Russian and English articles are sourced to a single topo map (I'm not counting Google Maps).  The Russian article only appears longer due to coverage of an unrelated territorial dispute.  – dlthewave ☎ 13:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tumen River .  This is the Soviet era military name for the last 7km of this river; it forms the border between Russia and NK, its unremarkable and an unneeded CFORK that fails GNG.  I don't find any usage which would indicate this was a commonly used name.  NGEO states, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." // Timothy :: talk 10:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't see doing this.  It's not claimed to be the same as the Tumen, and there's nothing in the latter's article about tributaries or the like.  Mangoe ( talk ) 01:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Tumen River .  Despite it not being the same as Tumen, however, do we really need a page strictly related to a stream of water that ultimately leads into the Tumen River?  I mean I have a stream in my backyard it leads into a lake but I don't see a page for it.  Swaggalicious ( talk ) 07:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Not notable and not mentioned at the proposed redirect target.  Avilich ( talk ) 22:03, 1 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete