This article was nominated for deletion on 16 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The current version of this article has some severe NPOV issues (Skookum1 and others please review WP:NPOV). This article will be edited to address outstanding WP:NPOV Issues with the current version. Mazdarules ( talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The photo is not really an accurate depiction of Bear Mountain. It is not a tree-covered wilderness, it is a subdivision and golf course. The flattering photo and text in the article leads me to believe this article is promotional. BeavisSanchez 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This article mercifully avoids fully sounding like a promo for the resort. Owners, managers and other employees, including p.r. firms working for the resort, are asked to abide by WP:COI and, as applicable WP:AUTO - protestors should also read both. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this article has gone from being balanced into a rant against the development by protestors. Don't get me wrong - I don't like Bear Mountain and the effect it will have on Greater Victoria's traffic and environment but surely this can be more balanced? I'm concerned that in the haste to purge these articles of anything that MIGHT say something good about a place and be miscontrued as "promotional" - you've now created a very one sided article that only opposes. By all means, keep in the controversies but also keep in the stuff about the restaurants and Len Barrie as it increases the richness of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 ( talk) 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Skookum1 - I don't think you understand my criticism. I don't see a problem with a description in an article saying there is a 20 hole golf course or a 300 room hotel as long as it is balanced out with other (sometimes negative) facts such as the environmental protests. Your comment underlines that when you say the project is notable because of the controversy. That may be true but it may also be true that is was notable because of a heavy advertising campaign in Ontario for its golf course/hotel etc which then deserves mention in the article. This is my complaint about heavy editing like you are doing. One person's take on a topic may be entirely different than another's and you both might be correct. Your definition of real estate promotion advertising may be entirely different than mine. When I see a slick brochure and exaggeration of reality, I see advertising. When someone points out a unique feature that is true - what is wrong with that - is it the work of real estate promoters? Similarly, your idea of what comprises a neighbourhood may be entirely different than mine or someone who actually lives in the place you are trying to downplay as a distinct area. But then, what gives you the authority or the knowledge to come to conclusions as to what is a neighbourhood or what is advertising???? Are you better informed than I am or anyone else? What are your qualifications to be the "God" of Greater Victoria's Wikipedia descriptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 ( talk) 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The things such as the restaurants and other "amenities" aren't notable. Wikipedia isn't a tourist brochure. Controversies, that are properly sourced are notable. GreenJoe 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For the IP users, Lake_Louise_Mountain_Resort is an example of a resort article writen pten and formatted properly; ther's no tcontroversy on that one, I'll see what else I can find. Skookum1 ( talk) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a 'B' rating on this article according to the WP Golf banner, but there's no way this is a B-class article as of today......not even 'C', IMO. There are specific criteria for B-class that the article should be measured against, and the assessment documented. PK T(alk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This has become a place for folks to advocate for a cause which isn't on and anyway a lot of it seems obsolete now. At the same time it misses out on the foreclosure action that has been going on. -- KenWalker | Talk 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bear Mountain (resort). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 May 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The current version of this article has some severe NPOV issues (Skookum1 and others please review WP:NPOV). This article will be edited to address outstanding WP:NPOV Issues with the current version. Mazdarules ( talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The photo is not really an accurate depiction of Bear Mountain. It is not a tree-covered wilderness, it is a subdivision and golf course. The flattering photo and text in the article leads me to believe this article is promotional. BeavisSanchez 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This article mercifully avoids fully sounding like a promo for the resort. Owners, managers and other employees, including p.r. firms working for the resort, are asked to abide by WP:COI and, as applicable WP:AUTO - protestors should also read both. Skookum1 ( talk) 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think this article has gone from being balanced into a rant against the development by protestors. Don't get me wrong - I don't like Bear Mountain and the effect it will have on Greater Victoria's traffic and environment but surely this can be more balanced? I'm concerned that in the haste to purge these articles of anything that MIGHT say something good about a place and be miscontrued as "promotional" - you've now created a very one sided article that only opposes. By all means, keep in the controversies but also keep in the stuff about the restaurants and Len Barrie as it increases the richness of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 ( talk) 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Skookum1 - I don't think you understand my criticism. I don't see a problem with a description in an article saying there is a 20 hole golf course or a 300 room hotel as long as it is balanced out with other (sometimes negative) facts such as the environmental protests. Your comment underlines that when you say the project is notable because of the controversy. That may be true but it may also be true that is was notable because of a heavy advertising campaign in Ontario for its golf course/hotel etc which then deserves mention in the article. This is my complaint about heavy editing like you are doing. One person's take on a topic may be entirely different than another's and you both might be correct. Your definition of real estate promotion advertising may be entirely different than mine. When I see a slick brochure and exaggeration of reality, I see advertising. When someone points out a unique feature that is true - what is wrong with that - is it the work of real estate promoters? Similarly, your idea of what comprises a neighbourhood may be entirely different than mine or someone who actually lives in the place you are trying to downplay as a distinct area. But then, what gives you the authority or the knowledge to come to conclusions as to what is a neighbourhood or what is advertising???? Are you better informed than I am or anyone else? What are your qualifications to be the "God" of Greater Victoria's Wikipedia descriptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 ( talk) 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The things such as the restaurants and other "amenities" aren't notable. Wikipedia isn't a tourist brochure. Controversies, that are properly sourced are notable. GreenJoe 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
For the IP users, Lake_Louise_Mountain_Resort is an example of a resort article writen pten and formatted properly; ther's no tcontroversy on that one, I'll see what else I can find. Skookum1 ( talk) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a 'B' rating on this article according to the WP Golf banner, but there's no way this is a B-class article as of today......not even 'C', IMO. There are specific criteria for B-class that the article should be measured against, and the assessment documented. PK T(alk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This has become a place for folks to advocate for a cause which isn't on and anyway a lot of it seems obsolete now. At the same time it misses out on the foreclosure action that has been going on. -- KenWalker | Talk 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bear Mountain (resort). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)