Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pate hole


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pate hole

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A cave that appears to assert no importance or significance. Captain  panda  12:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. Nothing there. BTLizard 13:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Non-notable.  —Kamope  (talk)  12:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much better now. BTLizard 09:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep this is an easily expandable article about a named geographic location. I'll give it a quick clean up now -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  18:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've cleaned up, wikified and referenced it; can't see any grounds for deletion now -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment Back on my pet peeve, but next time you might want to wait more than eight minutes from creation before AfDing articles like this where expandability can be checked in 30 seconds on Google -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. It's a notable geographic feature, and notable geographic features are notable per precident. Nominators should ideally not nominate articles for deletion eight minutes after they're first created - many people create their articles right in the main space, saving as they go. Imagine the poor editor who creates this article, saves his work, then tries to save again eight minutes later to find that somebody (in his mind, likely Wikipedia as an entity) has nominated it for deletion. Do you think he'd continue editing? Do you think he'd look favourably on Wikipedia in the future? Edited to add: Should it be renamed to Pate Hole? -- Charlene 20:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page re that - yes it should, but I'll hold off renaming until the AfD's over to save messing up the history etc -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  21:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good idea. -- Charlene 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The references in the article do demonstrate that this is a "notable" geographical feature. --Oakshade 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep sourced and notable --Speed Air Man 10:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Definate keep for process and content reasons. John Vandenberg 06:54, 25 April 2007 (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.