Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellerbeck Peak


 * 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. Neil N  talk to me 20:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ellerbeck Peak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the article contains only a few sentences of unscourced, unneeded description. article has been a stub since 2007, and no effort has been made to resolve the issue. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a significant geographic feature that, if it was in the developed world, would have plenty of sources and ancillary information. The lack of amplified content is almost certainly down to its remote location on an unpopulated continent. This has one reputable source. The facts are not in contention. It is not promotional. I see no reason to delete.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GEOLAND, as a "Named natural features", the article with "information beyond statistics and coordinates", this and this are books that could be used to provide further information/references for the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Subject meets GEOLAND and is reliably sourced. This appears to be at the least a clear failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. I think this nomination was Dead on Arrival and Suggest Speedy Close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. This is notable and shouldn't have ever been nominated. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 18:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.