Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boulder Creek (Queensland)


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Boulder Creek (Queensland)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources. —Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 10:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --  Kethrus &#124;talk to me 10:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, a local park area is not notable. Kierzek (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it is not that it doesn't have coverage, see e.g Swift response from firies after couple stranded on car, but it doesn't have the coverage required by Notability (geographic features). Parks are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the general notability guidelines, unlike legally recognized populated places which have their own guideline. There is also a problem with the name since there is another Boulder Creek in Queensland further south near Gympie, see Gympie to host outdoor recreation forum. Normally, I would say "redirect" to Calen, Queensland, but Calen is far away and because of the one near Gymie that redirect would be confusing.  There is nothing wrong with a properly cited entry for Boulder Creek within another appropriate article.  While citation to a secondary source is always better, a primary source may be used for verification.  If there were notability then a better name would be hydrographic disambiguation by main stream. As this Boulder Creek seems to flow into Omega Creek, that title would be Boulder Creek (Omega Creek) for the creek.  For the park one would use the jurisdiction that has control over the park, whatever municipality, forest reserve, or agency that may be, for disambiguation. (Would that be Mount Ossa National Park? If so maybe mention belongs in that article.)  --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I found a substantive article about Boulder Creek Park, "Focus sur Boulder Creek Park" (8 Sept. 2013), in French, by Laure Giraud. There were also articles in two other newspapers about the stranded couple, mentioned above. Still not enough coverage for notability, as I reckon things. --Bejnar (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and above editors. Bejnar's analysis is spot on.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:38, 9 October 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.