Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumus Rock


 * 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. Effectively withdrawn by nominator. No arguments for deletion, and no !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Lumus Rock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

delete This article has very little information, and only one reference. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the Antarctica stubs could probably be merged but they're not deletable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Geographical features are inherently notable. This one even has more encyclopedic information than most of the others. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information is very specific.--Ipigott (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep just one reference? Check again! The etymology is hilarious. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * keep It now clearly has more references than when I nominated for deletion. . I now have no problems with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know you're a new editor and there are thousands of these short stubs to be working on, expanding and referencing them, maybe an idea to do that instead of nominating them for deletion? Tisquesusa (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, mitzie asked me to add this article to the cats project as it relates to a famous feline, like a good human i have done so:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Nominator has !voted keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nom agrees this should be kept. The nom should be reminded that WP:GNG requires the existence of coverage, not that the coverage be placed in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Adequate indicia of notability for a geographic feature.  Montanabw (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2017 (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.