Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vidrus

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vidrus

Vidrus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This completely unsourced article (tagged as such for 10 months), consists largely of speculative original research. The lack of scholarly content is clearly characterized by the second sentence:

"Its exact location is not known for certain, but it must be in the lowlands."

Furthremore, it got only two ghits (in English), both of which pointed back to this article.Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment "Vidrus river" does indeeed turn up ghits that point to online texts of Ptolemy's Geography and the Annals of Tacitus. But the article needs references, and I have my doubts whether Vidrus should have its own article. Tubezone 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless sources are provided. Kavadi carrier 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Currently seems like an original research. No sources confirm the content, not even the Weser River claim.--Húsönd 01:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'll try and get verification for the etymology discussion, but the existence and relevance of the topic as such is beyond doubt. The fact that the identity of the river is not known doesn't mean it's not notable as a problem in historical geography. Turning that incertainty into an indication of "lack of scholarly content" is - sorry - bizarre. Scarcity of web sources in English isn't an argument either - it's not the type of subject where verifiability can or should be expected to be effortless. Its being unsourced for so long is unfortunate, but it's a well-written article on an interesting topic and evidently written by someone who had knowledge of relevant literature, we only need to find it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment: a quick search, still only on the web, turns up that the matter has been discussed in the scholarly literature, at least by the 19th-cent. editor of Ptolemy's Geography in his critical apparatus ([1]), and by a Dutch author in a scholarly journal in the 1930s ([2]). Some further hints at modern discussions (in Dutch): [3], [4]. The etymological issue has almost certainly been treated somewhere too; old European river names is a topic where no stone has been left unturned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Relisting because sources were added after everyone commented, and sourcing was an issue. --W.marsh 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid topic. A Google Books search shows that this is an issue which has been discussed. Up+land 20:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Real historical topic. --Oakshade 21:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup — Cite sources and wikify. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 22:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Its exact location is not known for certain, but it must be in the lowlands. You gotta be kidding... you don't know where at river or whatever it is actually is? Yet it has a name and is worthy of an article here? The name may be real but the rest is a blatant hoax... the worst part about this is that my stomach hurts from laughing. MartinDK 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you actually read the article, the further reading, and what is cited above, you'll find that the reason for that is that Ptolemy wrote about it in xyr Geographia, but scholars are unsure which actual river Ptolemy was writing about. Uncle G 14:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually I did read it. And I read the Geographia (Ptolemy) which doesn't even bother to mention this speculative subject. It is no hoax but isn't notable. Wikipedia is not an endless list of every fact known to mankind. Reason changed, vote remains the same. MartinDK 16:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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.