There are a large number of minor tributaries with stand-alone articles that are eternal stubs, such as this one, Elișeva River, Radu River (Mraconia), and Bentu River. There are more at Category:Rivers of the subbasins of small tributaries of the Danube. However, existence does not prove notability. Should they be deleted, merged into the article for the main river/basin, or kept as stubs? Looking for some other opinions here as this would be a very big move. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Agree - I took a look at what you were referring to and I agree with the move. It would take some time, but after carefully reviewing the pages and the WP:N policy it seems this case would warrant an article merger. It should be un-merged again only if there was detailed, notable information to be included about each tributary. I say go for it. Demokratickid (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Agree - in what concerns tributaries of tributaries of major rivers, which are definitely permastubs. Dahn (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
- Disagree Stubs are simply short articles, short articles were common and useful in the encyclopedias with which I grew up. WP:Five pillars identifies that Wikipedia is partly a gazeteer. Existence might not prove notability, but I think that a detailed government map, with one fact to add to the gazeteer, does. I did a Google search on Bentu River, and there were maybe 3 pages of Wiki mirrors and absolutely no additional references. I also tried Google maps. But looking at the article, there are two sources listed, and two sources is enough to satisfy WP:V content criteria. And I find the information in the infobox to be compelling that the material is reliable and more than just a place on a map. 10km (6 mi) long is what I would call a creek. As long as it is reliably sourced, is there something wrong with listing a creek in Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
