- 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. Tone 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Little Alcatraz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not separetely notable. Sourcing issues. Qwirkle ( talk) 04:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A named natural feature per WP:GEOLAND. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- ....Which specifically says such things are often notable ( which can mean in turn they are often not).
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.
That seems like an argument not to preseve this stublet. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- ....Which specifically says such things are often notable ( which can mean in turn they are often not).
- Keep or merge. If the information fits nicely on the main page, so be it. If not, a spin off article is the proper course to hold the information. Dream Focus 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge. Per Andrew Davidson. Britishfinance ( talk) 16:33, 19 February 2019 (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.
- 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. Tone 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Little Alcatraz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not separetely notable. Sourcing issues. Qwirkle ( talk) 04:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep A named natural feature per WP:GEOLAND. Andrew D. ( talk) 10:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- ....Which specifically says such things are often notable ( which can mean in turn they are often not).
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.
That seems like an argument not to preseve this stublet. Qwirkle ( talk) 15:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- ....Which specifically says such things are often notable ( which can mean in turn they are often not).
- Keep or merge. If the information fits nicely on the main page, so be it. If not, a spin off article is the proper course to hold the information. Dream Focus 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep, don't merge. Per Andrew Davidson. Britishfinance ( talk) 16:33, 19 February 2019 (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.