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 per SK1 & all that fun stuff. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy Loup[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria per geographic places. Unlikely that this article can develop beyond Fairy Loup is a waterfall in Scotland. Note: per multiple delete process this is initial "test" Afd. Please consider Category:Waterfalls of Scotland. Of the 277 articles in this category, and its sub-categories, I can only identify 19 which could be considered notable. --Haruth (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Withdrawn by nominator Squeamish Ossifrage's edits has clearly shown that Fairy Loup can probably be brought up to notability standards, and that there may be life in some of the other articles yet. --Haruth (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GEOLAND is fairly permissive here: "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." I've done what I could to expand the article accordingly. It's still very much a stub, but it is perhaps a bit more substantive of a stub now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (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.