Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kledo Creek Provincial Park


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Kledo Creek Provincial Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a provincial park. The BC Parks website has no information about this park and no other sources other than a book from 1987 support this park's existence. According to direct correspondence with BC Parks staff, this 6 hectare area was repealed in 2006. I'm not sure this area is notable enough to have its own page stating that it is a former park. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Like the nominator, I looked and found no substantive references online. The only existing references appeared to be entries that flagged the Wikipedia entry. --Rpclod (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC).  Re-direct to List_of_British_Columbia_Provincial_Parks as suggested by doncram (content may have already merged).--Rpclod (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous discussion here and the associated article history. Former provincial and state parks are considered notable for the purposes of the encyclopedia, and based on the comments above this area did exist as a provincial park at some point.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, if references can be found. Notability is not temporary. 117Avenue (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are taking WP:NTEMP out of context. WP:NTEMP means that if something is only "notable" for a short period of time, then it is not "notable" for purposes of WP:GNG.  That same section states: "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion". Regarding the other comment, I find no guideline that "Former provincial and state parks are considered notable for the purposes of the encyclopedia".  Instead, guidelines advise that the fact that other articles similar to the one in question exist is not an indicator of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized that after I posted. What I meant was we don't delete article when their subject no longer exists. 117Avenue (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * True, otherwise coverage of presidents and popes would be minimal.--Rpclod (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect (revised from Merge, revised from Keep). I revised the article slightly.  There are in fact some former parks and many other former places having articles;  see  Category:Former parks and open spaces of London‎ and Category:Former places, which I believe includes many many many former buildings and structures, too.  I think a former BC provincial park is likely unusual.  Provincial or state or national parks are treated best like high schools, where we assume notability and it is not worth debating whether current sources are entirely satisfactory.  For this park, there must have been legislation or other actions justifying a proposal, then creating the park and then eventually there must have been reasons to de-park it, say if it was destroyed environmentally and then deemed non-park-worthy.  Perhaps it was renamed or subsumed into another park, in which case a redirect might be appropriate when it is sorted out.  Whatever the story, it is surely documented somewhere (although apparently not on in sources easily found on the internet).  Offline sources are fine.  Keep this, like we automatically keep high schools. -- do  ncr  am  02:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: "Kledo Creek Park" is identified in Google maps and other map services.  You can see it right on the Alaska Highway, 54.2 km west of Fort Nelson, British Columbia.  The park exists.  The article should perhaps be moved from "Kledo Creek Provincial Park" to "Kledo Creek Park', but that is for anyone to simply move, or could be discussed at the Talk page;  it is not an AFD issue. -- do  ncr  am  03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be redirected to, say, List of British Columbia Provincial Parks where i have already gone ahead and put some information about this former park. -- do ncr  am  21:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am not opposed to keeping this article. However, as it stands I am concerned that a UHaul guidebook and a bike route map are inadequate sources, and everything else online exists because it flagged this Wikipedia article. I directly contacted BC Parks (the management agency for provincial parks in British Columbia) about this park and received this response: "This 6 hectare area is no longer a provincial park. It was repealed in 2006, but the location is along highway 97, approx half way between Stone Mountain Park and Fort Nelson in the Peace River Land District." So based on this personal communication (which cannot be cited on Wikipedia), it appears this park was deemed non-park-worthy. The location that appears as Kledo Creek Park appears to be correct, but I have no idea where this name came from or if it is still a park in any form. I tried to check the history of the object in Google Map Maker, but found nothing more than that the area had been deleted and probably shouldn't be showing up on the map. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the bill that repealed the park with some additional detail here. It appears that the park was originally called "Kledo Creek Park" (without "provincial"). At most this is a former park, and not a park at present. The Street View imagery shows no entrance to the where the park should be, and definitely no campground as the guidebook states. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't have access to any Canadian historical newspaper literature service, which I am guessing would probably provide coverage of the park's creation and/or de-registration. In an academic database, I find a couple articles studying spruce budworm deforestation that study the Kledo Creek area as well as other parts of Fort Nelson Forest District.  There's a map from Fort Nelson west along the 97 that shows maximum impact of deforestation that runs through the Kledo Creek Park.  Major deforestations happened in 1955, in 1990, and various other years, and there are big implications apparently for forest management. So this is speculation, but perhaps the forest there was destroyed by bugs and/or logging, and then it was de-parked?


 * Still, whatever the story, i think it should be covered more when someone can get the sources, and I think the article should be kept. thanks -- do  ncr  am  03:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, I grant that it does seem to be a former campground. Using Google street view, i can find my way to entrance and sign for another campground, Tetsa River Provincial Park, with entrance sign visible here in Google street view, but mostly like Fredlyfish4 says, there seems to be no entrance sign to a campground at Kledo Creek from Google street view.  Here however is the entrance, unmarked, just a hundred meters or so past crossing of Kledo Creek (which is marked). So my guess now is that it is federal or province land, and on a river and adjacent to the 97 highway, but otherwise not greatly different than other land around.  Still, once a park, like a high school, then best just to keep it, documenting it very simply as a former park, and it is as best we can tell still a "place", and potentially where some will want to stop to go fish or to picnic or to camp even if it is not an official campground.  Actually providing this info is a small service to readers who can potentially be looking for it, coming from the Google map mention or other mentions, on the level of a redirect or a disambiguation page but just a bit better, and no big deal. -- do  ncr  am  12:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I revised my !vote to merge (then to redirect), above.  It could be redirected to a "Former parks" section in List of British Columbia Provincial Parks.  I opened discussion about adding that section, at Talk:List of British Columbia Provincial Parks.  Likewise for other not-very-notable current BC parks that have articles, those could be redirected to the List-article.  I think the proper close is "Merge" rather than "Redirect" here, as technically we would merge the small amount of info available about this park, e.g. the sources about the law de-commissioning the park, to the list-article. -- do  ncr  am  20:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Given the above discussions, and as the nominator of this article for deletion, I now support redirecting and merging this and other similar former parks to the list of BC parks. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And Barkerville and Sudenten (former) parks have similar articles and likewise should be redirected and merged, as they were repealed in the same legislation as this park. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay, thanks, then that means there are no remaining "delete" voters and this could be closed. I agree about those other former parks, those could be treated the same, being sure to use the source in adding mention to the Former Provincial Parks section, and redirecting, and AFDs are not necessary.  Thanks for your attention to this! -- do  ncr  am  02:27, 21 September 2014 (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.