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 delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peatfold Burn[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It's rare a google search returns no results, but here we are. Given this, and the fact this is merely a geographic formation, this fails WP:NPLACE by a long shot. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A look at the reference given shows that the correct name of this feature is Burn of Peatfold. Using that produces a few hits, though I would tend to doubt its notability nonetheless, as for comparison we have deleted articles on German bachs of which we could only determine that they existed. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches for either term get few Google hits and many of the results seems to be for things around the burn rather than the burn its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (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.