Deletion of Kvinnefossen

Comment: A recognized tourist attraction https://books.google.com/books?id=pcINAAAAYAAJ&dq=Kvinnafos&pg=PA134#v=onepage&q=Kvinnafos&f=falsehttps://books.google.com/books?id=SKNbCAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT177&dq=Kvinnafossen&pg=PT177#v=onepage&q=Kvinnafossen&f=falsehttps://books.google.com/books?id=MT9nDALsym8C&lpg=PA153&dq=Kvinnefossen&pg=PA153#v=onepage&q=Kvinnefossen&f=falsehttps://books.google.com/books?id=zVloRlj-EowC&lpg=PA180&dq=Kvinnefossen&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q=Kvinnefossen&f=false (and here's an English-language source from 1791! https://books.google.com/books?id=Ui0BAAAAQAAJ&dq=Kvinnefos&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q=Kvinnefos&f=false)  Notable per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: Invalid deletion rationale. Appears to meet named natural features criteria in  when sources on the Norwegian articles are taken into account. If it does fall short, then yes it should be deleted. But this Afd is not based on policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GEOLAND)

Comment: Being short is not a deletion criterion. See 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB)