Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bois Beckett Forest
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 December 4. The result of the deletion review was endorsed. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 keep. ((discuss) 04:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)]
Bois Beckett Forest
- Bois Beckett Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Forest does not appear to meet the requirements of
]- Delete - Except for the one source cited, there appears no other sources to support the notability of this place. Does not meet WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)]
- Keep (or merge with Sherbrooke). I can understand why people would opine "delete". The article is badly titled (it should be either Beckett Woods Park or Parc du Bois-Beckett). The article didn't even state where this forest is located and was copied virtually verbatim from a tourist site. I've cleaned it up and found several references. It does have a certain amount of notability in Quebec, e.g. "Le bois Beckett, là pour rester". La Tribune and "Cinq balades à Sherbrooke". La Presse. Voceditenore (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk) 18:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)]
- There's also a previous 2009 story in La Tribune. I think we have just enough that it barely meets talk) 18:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)]
- It is an article about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. This is a common occurrence. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)*
- @Mrfrobinson: Hey Mike, can you please provide a url to sustantiate you claim that this article [is] about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC){{small|please pingme||
- The link is in the comment right above. The article was by La Tribune. I am not going to copy and paste a link that is directly above my comment. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Mrfrobinson: Hey Mike, can you please provide a url to sustantiate you claim that this article [is] about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC){{small|please pingme||
- Delete Does not meet the notability requirements. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. In my opinion this is notable, per WP:GEOLAND but also separately because of its documented scientific significance. Thparkth (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)]
- Keep – Meets WP:GEOLAND as per [1], [2], [3], [4]. There's also these sources, which provide some minor coverage: [5], [6]. North America1000 04:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)]
- 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.