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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jut (topography) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This metric is really cool but I don't think it's notable, since I can only find the unpublished arXiv source, a couple blogs and other websites that don't meet Wikipedia's RS standards. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Was going to try to make a good keep argument here but it looks like it's only discussed in a single academic paper from 2022. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 7 January 2025 (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.