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
Keep per consensus – PeaceNT 06:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is copied word-for-word from page 27 of Reader's Digest Book of Natural Wonders. Wiikid 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment though the article is a copy from what I have found there seems to be a possibility if someone was to do non-google/web research. it is most certainly a place, but it comes down to it's notability. --Tainter 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Keep. This could be a fine article.--Tainter 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename Oued El Abiod. Large geographical features such as mountains, rivers and valleys are inherently notable. That Readers Digest devoted an article to it in a book called Reader's Digest Book of Natural Wonders demonstrates further notability. (I've never seen an AfD nom supply strong backing evidence of subject notability before) But the proper name of this valley might be "Oued el Abiod" because that's what I'm finding a couple of tourism pieces about which seem to be the same subject. [1] --Oakshade 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Natural wonders" written about in books deserve articles, especially if there are multiple sources and more scholarly sources. Any text that is a copyviolation must be removed immediately. A stub may be created by paraphrasing the info in the article copied, and cited to the Reader's Digest source until someone does the schoolarship to fill out the article. Getting the name right will be a great help to finding more source mateerial. Edison 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form if it really is a copyvio. It can always be recreated without the copyvio -- Whpq 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is no copyvio issue and it is a large geographical feature. -- Whpq 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update. The article has just been reduced to a non-copywrite violation stub. --Oakshade 05:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now it's not a copyvio it should stay. --Richhoncho 09:52, 24 January 2007 (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.