Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D River State Recreation Site


 * 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. L Faraone  05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

D River State Recreation Site

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm pretty sure this could be covered in the article for D River itself, and it seems that that article could use the information. Themane2 (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: This article is about the state park; the D River is a minor aspect of it.  Expansion of the D River and Devils Lake articles will evolve in entirely different directions.  I've expanded this article somewhat as a research exercise, but also to satisfy myself that the river and park are distinct subjects.  —EncMstr (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable.--Themane2 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  —Valfontis (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Nomination does not give a valid deletion criterion (although non-notability is implied). Otherwise this could be covered with a merge proposal. But keep per EncMstr and his expansion to add info about it being a notable kite-flying site. And it passes notability guidelines as it is mentioned in multiple reliable independent sources. See Google search, Google books, and Google News. Valfontis (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep-- The article isn't too bad, and it's a state park. This should stay. Jsayre64   (talk)  02:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you cite a valid reason for keeping per the discussion guidelines? As far as I know, state parks don't get a "free pass" like some things in WP:OUTCOMES, and I looked carefully. And the article's quality isn't supposed to be a factor. Thanks! Valfontis (talk)
 * Oh. Well I just read your reason to keep and I agree nearly exactly with it. And by "the article isn't too bad," I meant to say, "it has enough references," but of course no one would know that… sorry. :-) Anyway, there are citations for the content, so original research doesn't have to be used to give enough information, and it receives enough coverage that it would be considered notable. Keep per EncMstr as well. Jsayre64   (talk)  15:39, 3 January 2011 (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.