Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore Kent

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 May 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 Redirect to Kent County Council. This has received enough discussion and the arguments to keep the article as is centre on material sourced from the primary source. The clear thrust of argument based within policy is to redirect. Hiding T 09:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explore Kent

See discussion. I'm really hoping to get some discussion by English editors, because I can see this both ways: OrangeMike's reaction was that this is an overly promotional piece by someone who's been paid by the Kent County Council, but I don't see clear evidence of that; this may just be a minor ad campaign by the Council, promoting only Kent walking trails. When governments outside the U.S. do something promotional, I prefer not to speedy, because there's a perception outside the U.S. that Americans are endlessly self-promotional about their own government but don't allow anyone else the same latitude. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also posted notice at talk page of WP:ENGLAND. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kent County Council as previously. ukexpat (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it were just a website promotion it might warrant deletion, but the fact of a print magazine with a circulation of 60,000 seems enough to me. An article about something promotional isn't necessarily itself promotional – and anyway, I can't really imagine Kent County Council (who are possibly the most web-obsessed local authority on the planet, and are regularly criticised for the huge sums they spend on their own huge website) feeling the need to spam on Wikipedia. Iridescent : Chat 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - hmmm... that's why I believe they were spamming here - they want to rule tha Interwebz! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep per wonderful rationale by Iridescent, or Rename and refocus per Chris Neville-Smith. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as suggested by the UKexpat. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This website has over 1300 pages and publications on walking, cycling and riding which it produces itself. Definately noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.226.176 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - So? That has nothing to do with the notability (or lack thereof) of the website, or any of the other promotional things under this umbrella. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Sorry, I meant it in the normal sense of the word - as in - deserving notice. From what I can see this is the public face of a council department, which has both a significant online and offline presence which when combined is large enough to be worthy of an entry. 93.97.226.176 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article would really belong better in an article about the Kent countryside (or at least the Council's role in it) but there doesn't appear to be one. Would it make sense to expand this and rename it to "Kent countryside"? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mfield (Oi!) 06:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Seems a little overly promotional to me.Wacko Jack O 08:54, 7 April 2009 (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.