From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ( non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Bøsdalafossur

Bøsdalafossur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub with large overlap with Sørvágsvatn. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ ( talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Unsourced" is not a reason for deletion, see WP:RUBBISH; what counts is the existence of sources, see WP:NEXIST. Being a stub is not a reson for deletion either, see WP:IMPATIENT. The so-called "overlap with Sørvágsvatn" is obscure to me, they are distinct natural features, and per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. A few references to book sources have been added. — Sam Sailor 22:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:41, 24 September 2016 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. ( non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Bøsdalafossur

Bøsdalafossur (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub with large overlap with Sørvágsvatn. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ ( talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Unsourced" is not a reason for deletion, see WP:RUBBISH; what counts is the existence of sources, see WP:NEXIST. Being a stub is not a reson for deletion either, see WP:IMPATIENT. The so-called "overlap with Sørvágsvatn" is obscure to me, they are distinct natural features, and per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. A few references to book sources have been added. — Sam Sailor 22:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:41, 24 September 2016 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook