Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Benachally

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 speedy keep. Low quality deletion nomination which sits well outside the established geographic features notability guidance. Nick (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Benachally[edit]

[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)

Unless I'm missing something about wikipedia policies, I don't think we need a 1-sentence encyclopedia entry for every single loch in existence. Wiki2008time (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GEOLAND. It’s a geographical feature about which more is known than just its name and location. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article sits within the gazetteer function of Wikipedia. I have also added a reference to the corresponding Gazetteer for Scotland article. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an encyclopedia. It is eminently notable and one in a series of articles, List of lochs of Scotland, still under development. The article is still development. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki2008time, I think it really a good thing to check the sources, when your Afd'ing an article. This loch here, has the remains of a bronze age hut circle village next to it.scope_creep^Talk 08:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The sourcing already in the article clearly demonstrates a GNG pass; GEOLAND is a thing; a quick check on any search engine throws up plenty more sources. The fact that the article is short is no sort of deletion rationale. Suggest this be snow closed by the next passing admin. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 19 June 2020 (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.