Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecomare

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 merge‎ to Duinen van Texel National Park. The merge arguments are more compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecomare[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant, in-depth, and independent coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Netherlands. MarioGom (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See additional references and other information including books in the corresponding Dutch article at nl:Ecomare. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than enough significant, in-depth and independent coverage to be found in reliable sources. This for example is from the island´s tourist information desk.

Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above and the Dutch article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If not keep, then at least merge to Duinen van Texel National Park. I don't read Dutch to assess the sourcing or the Dutch-language article, but at a minimum this should be covered within the park's article. Star Mississippi 18:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Duinen van Texel National Park. While the subject is notable, the article MUST NOT be kept as the amount of text it contains is less than the correct amount of text on this subject at Duinen van Texel National Park. In other words, this article should be considered an unjustified SPINOUT. It's not even a SPINOFF. When much more is written on the subject, a SPINOFF can be created. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I open to this as well. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: While this article is substantially sourced and notable in some way, there is a possibility that a merge with Duinen van Texel National Park is recommended since such article mentions the affected article. HarukaAmaranth (話) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have to change my mind over the next few days, sock puppet investigation regarding the user who created this page ongoing. HarukaAmaranth (話) 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HarukaAmaranth, I don't think that should change whether we keep an article if it's useful. Our guidelines don't encourage this.

A lot of our content was created by sockpuppets, meat puppets, now-banned editors (some very prolific) and folks with conflicts of interests. We could be busy for months shrinking this thing from 6.5 million articles to several million.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you, just wanted to know. If that's the case, I'll just say this article needs merging. HarukaAmaranth (話) 02:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between those advocating Keeping this article and those editors who think a Merge would be more appropriate. Definitely no consensus here for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Duinen van Texel National Park. A lot of the material on the Dutch article is unreferenced or actually WP:PRIMARY so expansion by translating from Dutch is not recommendable unless other sources can be found. Therefore I agree with Gidonb that merging back into the parent article is more appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – has adequate coverage in references. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2023 (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.