Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. National Parks conservation


 * 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. The delete arguments were grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while the keep arguments were decidedly not. Kurykh (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S. National Parks conservation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTESSAY content fork of National park and National Park Service. Parts of this ("visiting", "intrinsic values") read like advocacy content promoting the funding of the NPS. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's a hodgepodge of ideas about national parks. Sounds like advocacy (WP:NOTADVOCATE) or just something made up one day. Not an encyclopedia article.Glendoremus (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

KEEP - this is an excellent summary of a substantial field in environmental anthropology and sustainability & social justice. There are numerous scholars who focus on this topic across the world. The information presented is factual. — Ametrine-Ametrine (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC).

I AGREE. The article can be improved but should be kept. This is an important history. — Moreanon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (UTC).

KEEP: It was proposed earlier that this content should be added to other pages rather than stand alone. This was rejected because conservation has a very long history as do National Parks and their intersection is a crucial piece of understanding and knowledge whose history and current adaptions are important enough to warrant their own page. Rather than being a "hodgepodge" of ideas, the sub-sections on this page have been carefully selected to illustrate this topic's history and breadth. While far from complete and in need of editing, this page should remain. We would appreciate suggestions on editing and knowledge of trouble areas. Whatisthismagic (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Whatisthismagic (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

KEEP: This article has a good summery of national park history, and it contains good environmental issues with national park use such as accessibility and extraction, and sub-sections are well selected and written. Also, tone of this article is neutral. Dongchanyang (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Keep: This whole article should be deleted because of that one sentence? Doesn't make sense. Dongchanyang (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has some problems that should be resolved through normal editing process, the subject is notable, it is discussed by secondary sources, there are enough legal and scholarly sources to justify a stand-alone article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 08:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete unencylopedic essay. I mean, really – "What does it mean for a National Park to be intrinsically good?". Laurdecl talk 08:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a note that you can't vote twice. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTESSAY Looks like another part of the UC Berkley class disaster we've been dealing with lately. Seraphim System's comments are irrelevant as it's also a redundant fork of National Park Service and other topics it covers (practically in WP:A10 territory), so a redirect really isn't feasible to one article either. As a side note, the class case has been closed for now at AE, but an IP's recent comment from UC Berkley there does raise the concern for WP:MEAT issues when these class articles come up at AfD. Best to be wary of that for whoever closes this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is part of User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles. Laurdecl talk 07:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Content fork essay. Despite the old college try to keep the thing. Not to mention the POV "parks are good" message. Dloh cierekim  16:17, 1 May 2017 (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.