Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kvinnefossen

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. No chance of, or reason for, being deleted. Geschichte (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kvinnefossen[edit]

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

this article is very short wiki tamil 100 07:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted. The Norwegian Wikipedia has a great entry for this, https://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvinnefossen, and if we had someone translate it, it could make a great article. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being short is not a deletion criterion. See WP:STUB. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid deletion rationale. Appears to meet named natural features criteria in WP:GEOLAND when sources on the Norwegian articles are taken into account. If it does fall short, then yes it should be deleted. But this Afd is not based on policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. A recognized tourist attraction [1][2][3][4] (and here's an English-language source from 1791! [5]) Notable per WP:GEOLAND. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:29, 23 March 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.