Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver, Coast & Mountains

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 due to advert/spam concerns. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver, Coast & Mountains[edit]

Delete - this article's intent/content already exists in Greater Vancouver/Lower Mainland, British Columbia Coast/Vancouver Island and British Columbia Interior/Northern British Columbia, which are the "top-level" BC regions. As a grouping, sans the BC patch of the Canadian Prairies in the Northeast (part of the Interior), the geographic grouping relative t o the Shield, St. Lawrence/Great Lakes basin, Maritimes etc is the Pacific Cordillera. This article's title/content also, yes, is composed of BC Tourism rebranding material/efforts e.g. "Kootenay Rockies"and "Coast Chilcotin Cariboo" which are not "real" regions, not by those names anyway; this page probably started by a Ministry of Tourism official/contractee by the look of such content. Fact of the matter is that the BC govt ministries ALL have different administrative/marketing regions - Forestry's is different from Environment/Parks, Energy/Mines/Resources different again, Tourism, Education, Aboriginal Affairs etc. They can all be mentioned in the course of other articles, and maybe redirects established; but they should not be the a priori hierarchical definitions, even if official; they are, especially the tourism regions - SPAM in nature as implicity advertising-oriented/created.Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, spamvertisement for non-notable marketing region, topic falls under scope of other existing spamvertisementless articles. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's well-reasoned arguments. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-This article would fit much better under Wikitravel. Provides little context that would be found in a Wikipedia article. As the nom. stated above, this article is just spam. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 18:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spamvertisement tourism marketing. DigitalC (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of thing belongs on Wikitravel, not here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2008 (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.