Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kubrick Mons


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator, !votes are all neutral or keeps. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Kubrick Mons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is just one reference and this one reference doesn't say that the geological feature is called Kubrick Mons. This article has to be deleted. Huritisho 18:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I was planning on saying "no opinion", but if your reason for deletion is that there are insufficient sources, then you should add better sources per WP:BEFORE. — kwami (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My reason for deletion is that the source doesn't even say the geological feature is called kubrik mons. It would also violate the notability requirement Huritisho 18:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There are adequate sources available for a stub. Seems intuitively clear that the feature is not going away and people will continue to want to know about it.  The name is "informal" for now, perhaps, but that's OK &mdash; if it gets a different, more official name, we can always move the article. --Trovatore (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't even say it is called kubrik mons Huritisho 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This one does. So do several others that you can find just by clicking the link that was automatically added by the find sources template. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is also the possibility of moving it to Charon (moon) Huritisho 19:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, adequate sources exist for a stub, and the feature is intuitively notable. I'm sticking with keep. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral, now tending weak keep. Trovatore has found a source showing that the moat mountain is indeed called Kubrick Mons, informally. This also says it. --JorisvS (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to cancel this darn nomination I started. Huritisho 19:41, 7 October 2015 (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.