Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Sharshara

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 delete. With no prejudice against creating a redirect to Tarhuna if that article is expanded to include information about this subject. Currently, a redirect as suggested makes no sense since a reader will not find any information there. So Why 13:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sharshara

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested, no reason given. There is no evidence that this landmark is notable. Giant Snowman 10:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability is a specious reason for deletion when shelf space is infinite; it only matters to dead tree encyclopedias. There is nothing to indicate that this is a spurious story, and it costs nothing to retain it. As almost no one will find it, it isn't causing any trouble. Should tourism in Libya return, perhaps interest will develop.Acad Ronin (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lack of notability is a specious reason for deletion" - Really? Lack of notability is the main reason articles get deleted. As for lack of shelf space being a reason to not delete something - WP:NOTTOILETPAPER describes the general opinion about that argument. Wikipedia doesn't need articles about subjects that don't meet the General Notability Guideline. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"[A]ny article can be improved..., and so deletion should be reserved for only the most outrageously slanderous, unsourced, badly written articles." So I spent time improving the article's English. How about lighting a candle rather than going around snuffing them out?Acad Ronin (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the General Notability Guideline. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete no mention anywhere else on the wiki, despite being touted as one of the most famous waterfalls in Libya (a country without much water, as it hapoens). Might even be a hoax, can't find any relevant info in English.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Clearly no one has bothered to look at the "see also" before advocating deletion: sharsharh national park - proap group Before the Libyan civil war there apparently was a serious plan to develop the site. The article does not appear to be a hoax, unless the whole Portuguese website is a supporting hoax. The website has quite a bit of relevant info on Al Sharsharh. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this webpage mention a waterfall? If not, the article might need rewriting. – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I had re-written the article, before Giantsnowman deleted my work. Admittedly, I hadn't incorporated the info from the website. Since then, I have also discovered that there is a reserve of some sort 2o miles east of Tajura (also spelled Tajoura).Acad Ronin (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this page doesn't have content currently, any content about the falls seems most appropriate and useful on the Tarhuna page. The only RS coverage I could find (including in Libyan sources) of the falls was directly about tourism to the Tarhuna area as a whole. That page currently lacks a 'notable sites' page and I think the waterfall (and whatever complex surrounds it) would have the best content impact on that article. I would move for Merge if the page had any RS content currently, but now: AbstractIllusions (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of merging the original article, somewhat rewritten, into the Tarhuna page. Is there any way of finding out a more precise location? There is another, small green patch about 15 miles NNE of Tarhuna.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggestion, take it for what it is worth: The few RS hits I could find on Al Sharshara all referred to it in the context of Tarhuna. So even if it is not the most precise location, that is the best page for it with English coverage. While I can speak some basic Arabic, I can't read it, so if local coverage provides a more precise coverage that would be reasonable to follow. But, I'd suggest taking the lack of precision for the better coherence with coverage. The article on Tarhuna could certainly use some "candlelight," to borrow your metaphor. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2017 (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.