Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bouncing stones
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:37, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopedically notable or unreferenced, unverifiable nonsense? Which is it? --GRider\talk 19:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep seems verifiable to me. Interesting bit of true Australian lore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- GRider, please tell me what you think should happen to Bouncing stones. It is your responsiblity as nominator to clearly tell your fellow Wikipedians what you think should happen as a result of the nomination. —Markaci 2005-03-15 T 20:45 Z
- Keep not sure if they are the same thing, but some 'bouncing stones' appear to be sacred [1]. Kappa 00:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme keep. Stones which possess the ability to bounce are inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic. —RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. I have cleaned this up noting that the beach is an Aboriginal sacred site in the Daintree National Park in Far North Queensland and providing some sources. Capitalistroadster 10:20, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 02:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- keep Yuckfoo 21:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.