Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mt. Ephraim, Vermont

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 Snowball Keep, non-admin closure. Neier (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Ephraim, Vermont[edit]

no real google hits, seems unnotable and unreferenced SGGH ^speak! 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources added and major geographic features are notable. This article went to AfD 12 minutes after creation? • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Geographical features such as mountains are considered notable. Prodding or nominating an article for deletion so soon after its creation is disruptive to the improvement of articles. This project needs more good editors and this practice only discourages them. --Oakshade (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reasons above. Notability is a guideline, not policy. Also, WP:GOOGLEHITS does not superceed secondary sources, ever. MrPrada (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above, and presumably, being located in Springfield, it's covered by the injunction. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because something doesn't have lots of google-hits, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm so frustrated by this trend with Wikipedia editors. Infuriated, actually. Someone deleted a page on my career as a stage magician for this reason, even though I was doing that long before google.Agamus 07:43, 25 February 2008
shows up in the USGS Geographic Names Information System, so it exists. It doesn't rank terribly high within List of mountains in Vermont, though, since there are higher mountains there. I'd rate this one as a weak keep. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is refenced. Well-sourced articles on geographic features are always A-OK with me. y'am'can (wtf?) 14:06, 26 February 2008 (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.