Talk:Kinlock Shelter

Proposed deletion of Kinlock Shelter
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kinlock Shelter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * This rock shelter doesn't seem to be very notable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fangfufu (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The location has intrinsic cultural significance. It is mentioned or featured in several publications, has been featured in a television program on Alabama Public Television, and is well known to frequent visitors of Bankhead National Forest and Sipsey Wilderness, and the local native-american population. I will concede that the article could use some improvement, and I will carry out such improvement, but it is not worthy of deletion. I have removed the template.Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The non-redundant portion of the discussion that followed the prod on my talk page (talk) can be found below: ::Disagree. The location has intrinsic cultural significance. It is mentioned or featured in several publications, has been featured in a television program on Alabama Public Television, and is well known to frequent visitors of Bankhead National Forest and Sipsey Wilderness, and the local native-american population. I will concede that the article could use some improvement, and I will carry out such improvement, but it is not worthy of deletion.Jo7hs2


 * I have completed several improvements to the article, and will continue to improve it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about this proposed deletion. I was sorting the backlog of new page that required to be patrolled. It is just that when I first googled about it, not a lot seemed to have come up. I have to apologise for my hastiness on putting on the wrong tag. I think the article is getting better. Next time I will be more careful on putting tags on. Fangfufu (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I could have made it clearer in the article what the significance was, and I could have done a better job positioning references so that the article was more clearly sourced. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added a line regarding the site, feel free to delete, if you feel it doesn't fit in the article. Fangfufu (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actually it is important to note that camping is currently prohibited there (also w/in .5mi of the nearby falls), because people often camp in rock shelters in Bankhead National Forest.Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was that the article was kept. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of sources/Cleanup/Stub
I am removing the unsourced tag from this article. There is a source cited. Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional sources added by both me and the individual noting need for sources. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the cleanup notice. Both myself and the individual placing the notice have improve the article to the point where I feel comfortable removing it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added stub status to this article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)