Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Point State 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   speedy keep per WP:SNOW. No evidence was given that all three entries are non-notable. Even if one or more were not notable, a dab page can still exist. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Long Point State Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Taken from Special:AncientPages. Was last edited in 2005. All 3 entries seem non-notable in their own right. Coin945 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - the individual entries probably need to be dealt with first. While all three exist, a disambiguation page like this (even one not edited for a while) remains valid and generally policy-compliant. If one of the entries is removed then by all means this should be nominated again per WP:TWODABS. Stalwart 111  13:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hard to see why lack of editing on a legitimate disambiguation page is a reason for deletion. older ≠ wiser 14:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note The 2005 bit wasn't part of my deletion rationale. The fact that in my humble opinion the 3 entries weren't notable, is. I am quite happy to change my mind if evidence is given to the contrary. But with articles like these that were created so very long ago, it is very possible it could have stayed merely due to inertia. It's time to AFD these suckers and see if they really deserve a place here or not.--Coin945 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be an argument for deleting those three articles. But given that the articles exist and there is ambiguity with their names, a disambiguation page is appropriate. older ≠ wiser 15:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - a valid disambiguation page for the three articles that populate the page. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not an article, but a good DAB. Issues with each of the articles should be dealt with individually with a good dose of WP:BEFORE on each.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: no reason to delete it: it disambiguates three articles. I've tidied it a little. "These suckers" clearly "deserve a place here" while the articles they disambiguate exist, or if the topics are mentioned in other articles. There's a lot of rubbish in the encyclopedia, but no need to kill off well-formed dab pages. Pam  D  13:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Age last edited is not a grounds for deletion. If the contents needed to be deleted, that would need to be done first; however, state parks are well-established as notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. Even if all 3 pages were deleted, they would probably still meet MOS:DABMENTION and so be valid disambiguation entries. Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2013 (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.