- 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nansenflua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(This is my first AFD, so please don't get mad if it's inappropriate!)
This is quite an obscure subsea rock. The first reference is only a quick trivial mention of the rock, the other is apparently from some book. I don't think this makes it notable. Kebabipita (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What disqualifies "some book" from being an adequate source?--Oakshade (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I was unsure about this one, but a cooperative effort has doubled the number of references and I think it now squeaks by as a named geographic place. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Five books and two web sources now. Manxruler (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2013 (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.