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.
Forest does not appear to meet the requirements of
WP:GNGKDS4444Talk 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Except for the one source cited, there appears no other sources to support the notability of this place. Does not meet
WP:GNG.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 00:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep (or merge with
Sherbrooke). I can understand why people would opine "delete". The article is badly titled (it should be either Beckett Woods Park or Parc du Bois-Beckett). The article didn't even state where this forest is located and was copied virtually verbatim from a tourist site. I've cleaned it up and found several references. It does have a certain amount of notability in Quebec, e.g.
"Le bois Beckett, là pour rester". La Tribune and
"Cinq balades à Sherbrooke". La Presse.
Voceditenore (
talk) 14:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It is an article about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. This is a common occurrence.
Mrfrobinson (
talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)*reply
@
Mrfrobinson: Hey Mike, can you please provide a url to sustantiate you claim that this article [is] about a city land deal to obtain land for the park.
Ottawahitech (
talk) 10:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC){{small|please pingme||reply
The link is in the comment right above. The article was by La Tribune. I am not going to copy and paste a link that is directly above my comment.
Mrfrobinson (
talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements.
Mrfrobinson (
talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. In my opinion this is notable, per
WP:GEOLAND but also separately because of its documented scientific significance. Thparkth (
talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Forest does not appear to meet the requirements of
WP:GNGKDS4444Talk 00:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Except for the one source cited, there appears no other sources to support the notability of this place. Does not meet
WP:GNG.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 00:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep (or merge with
Sherbrooke). I can understand why people would opine "delete". The article is badly titled (it should be either Beckett Woods Park or Parc du Bois-Beckett). The article didn't even state where this forest is located and was copied virtually verbatim from a tourist site. I've cleaned it up and found several references. It does have a certain amount of notability in Quebec, e.g.
"Le bois Beckett, là pour rester". La Tribune and
"Cinq balades à Sherbrooke". La Presse.
Voceditenore (
talk) 14:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It is an article about a city land deal to obtain land for the park. This is a common occurrence.
Mrfrobinson (
talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)*reply
@
Mrfrobinson: Hey Mike, can you please provide a url to sustantiate you claim that this article [is] about a city land deal to obtain land for the park.
Ottawahitech (
talk) 10:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC){{small|please pingme||reply
The link is in the comment right above. The article was by La Tribune. I am not going to copy and paste a link that is directly above my comment.
Mrfrobinson (
talk) 23:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements.
Mrfrobinson (
talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam SailorTalk! 00:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. In my opinion this is notable, per
WP:GEOLAND but also separately because of its documented scientific significance. Thparkth (
talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
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.