Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bear Mountain (resort)


 * 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. Now that the article has been stubified the consensus is to Keep. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Bear Mountain (resort)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable resort, fails WP:GNG. Moreover, the entire article is a POV controversy section which is poorly sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, TNT - it would seem that, based on the ongoing controversies, it meets the burden of the GNG. I agree it's way too much about the controversy and should be rewritten. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is an essay that would be more in line with deleting, rather than keeping, seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Stubify: meets WP:GNG; however the article is so full of self-published sources that fixes other than just starting over would not work. Esquivalience t 18:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Personally I think it's better off Blown up & rewritten from scratch, I get we're an encyclopedia & all that but there's no chance in hell of this being rewritten from what it is now to WP standards so personally think it's better off all redone again and this time should hopefully meet the standards here. – Davey 2010 Talk 07:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the basis of news coverage such as these  covering its 2013 sale and this which describes some sort of bankruptcy scandal. It's a private business at the end of the day, but I think these sort of sources squeak it over the WP:GNG threshold. Now the unsourced material has been removed the article can be rebuilt appropriately. Sionk (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the stubified article is fine, and a massive improvement on the POV page that I nominated for deletion- still could do with being expanded in an encyclopedic way. If I could, I'd withdraw my nomination, but I can't, so Keep. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:09, 25 May 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.