Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zec Dumoine

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. Secret ^account 16:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zec Dumoine[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable hunting reserve. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Zec Dumoine was officially established in 1978 as a "Zone d'exploitation contrôlée" as controlled harvesting area for hunting and fishing by the Government of Quebec (Canada). It is one the 86 ZEC created in Quebec. Its territory of 1500 km2 and tourist activities fully justified to keep the article "ZEC Dumoine" on Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people visit each year this Zec. I created this article in order to publicize protected areas in Quebec and to fully inform the public about the mission of this entity. Of course, the content can be improved and we have to stay open-minded. A withdrawal of the article would be contrary to the mission of Wikipedia. I strongly recommand to keep it in its original version.User:Veillg1 10:51, September 22, 2014 (HNE)
Delete. Article fails to establish the notability of subject. If there are independent RSs on this, a quick Google search did not find them; seems to be pretty much entirely promotional material. Wikipedia does not exist to promote or publicize things, it exists to document WP:NOTABLE things. Without significant coverage from reliable sources, this needs to go. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two Comments:
- (1) I see that, under Zone d'exploitation contrôlée there are more than 130 such "Controlled havesting zones, each of which has an article. I spent a few minutes skimming a dozen or so at random. Based on this cursory scan, it appears that most, if not all, of the articles will be similar to Zec Dumoine. I'd hate to open up 130 discussions! Is grouping possible? --Larry (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (2) Unless there are more reliable sources hiding out there somewhere, it surely fails WP:GNG. However, I lack enough experience to know whether WP:GEOLAND applies. The description of Zone d'exploitation contrôlée makes it sound more like an agency than a population region, but I'll defer to more experienced folks to decide. --Larry (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (and comment) - With 130 other similar articles, I wonder if anybody knows of past discussions about this (a search through AfD for "zec" was not fruitful, but there may have been threads elsewhere). As far as I can tell, these are officially designated geographical areas (which usually means keep), but privately managed and not apparently subject to any sort of exception/shortcut via WP:NGEO. As I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources, I have to go with a weak delete pending other arguments/sources. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:18, 16 October 2014 (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.