Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Lyvennet

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) Xegma(talk) 13:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

River Lyvennet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of sources. Xegma(talk) 17:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source about the walk though its from the national park so may not be secondary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see an encyclopedic development other than an informative pamphlet. Alon9393 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:NATFEAT as named natural feature. Wikipedia:BEFORE, bad nom: no refs is not a reason for deletion, especially if they are available.Djflem (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't appear that any WP:BEFORE was done. There are plenty of sources out there, and I will add some of them, including a BBC article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2024 (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.