Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Ambroise Beach Provincial Park

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 keep. No consensus to delete this article, and a consensus to keep post improvements by Spicy (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ambroise Beach Provincial Park[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)

To my opinion plain advertising. Most of the article is not about the park but about the campsite. WP:TNT The Banner talk 22:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep, or redirect to List of provincial parks in Manitoba. Provincial-class parks are the type of topic we should have articles about whenever possible, per WP:GEOLAND — obviously GEOLAND explicitly states that they can still be redirected to a related topic if they prove impossible to source better than just technical primary source verification that they exist, but they are exactly the kind of topic for which we should be at least trying to maintain standalone articles. As written, the article isn't really such an extreme WP:NOTADVERT violation that deletion on those grounds would be warranted — any advertorialism here is quite mild, and can be easily dealt with through the normal editing process, and other sources do exist for it. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the park to evaluate whether there's enough sourcing to get it over the bar for a standalone article, so I'm fine with either solution, but even if it doesn't prove sourceable enough to keep a standalone article it still clearly merits a redirect to a related topic. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. I added more information about the park and trimmed the worst of the WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE content. I haven't been able to find a ton of sources, but IMO there is enough to justify a pass of WP:GEOLAND and a stand-alone article. Our standard for notability is WP:NEXIST and it seems improbable that a provincial park would not have more coverage somewhere, even if it is locked away in a dusty government file. Spicy (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close as keep This is about the first time that I see a statement of Bearcat to the tune of (...) any advertorialism here is quite mild, and can be easily dealt with through the normal editing process, (...) is followed by a sincere improvement/de-spamming of the article. Not by Bearcat, by the way, as he usually just slams down the statement to keep spam. So I give credit to User:Spicy for his work. And I request a speedy close as keep now it is turned in a normal article. The Banner talk 10:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I diagree that the article as nominated required TNT. Since the nomination, it has been cleaned up showing that TNT was not needed, just simple editing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2020 (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.