This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Overseas France Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Overseas France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Overseas France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Overseas FranceWikipedia:WikiProject Overseas FranceTemplate:WikiProject Overseas FranceOverseas France articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France: Saint Pierre and Miquelon Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Saint Pierre and Miquelon work group (assessed as Low-importance). Rivers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Onel5969 - The "Belle River, Saint Pierre and Miquelon" does not belong to the province of Prince Edward Island. Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon is an archipelago in the southwest of Newfoundland. And Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon belongs to France, not Canada. The article written on "Belle River" was completely consistent; unfortunately another user deleted it alleging that there was no reference. A reference call message would have sufficed. Deleting the article was definitely a bad decision. And the redirection, even more. -- Veillg1 ( talk) 14:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply

No, you have a history of poorly sourced and OR/Synth additions, and also have shown no indication that you are willing to listen to constructive criticism from other editors as per WP:ICANTHEARYOU. So the removal of uncited material was totally appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply

You continue to ignore the comments of others. There are two problems concerning this case. If you had read my comment correctly, the displayed redirect is totally wrong; it has nothing to do with the references request of the original article. The second dimension is to display sources to the original article; you should have applied yourself to proposing sources, rather than making a forced switch to erasure.-- Veillg1 ( talk) 19:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Notifying recent contributors @ Veillg1, @ Onel5969. I rewrote the article with what is hopefully proper sourcing. Let me know if it is acceptable, as I'm not very used to edits on rivers outside of Tamil Nadu, and that may have affected the quality. Thanks! Starkenborgher ( talk) 20:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your initiative to add references to the article. Well appreciated. -- Veillg1 ( talk) 23:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply