Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burham Marsh

: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. (non-admin closure) Mr.Z-man.sock (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Burham Marsh]]=

:{{la|Burham Marsh}} ([{{fullurl:Burham Marsh|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burham Marsh}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

A coatrack of information about a marsh. Seems to be copied from a visitors map of some sort. Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Tavix (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: As with most of the articles in :Category:Nature reserves in Kent, this is scraped from the Kent Wildlife Trusts website by its own webmaster, who disclosed the conflict of interest and addressed copyright issues in the articles' various talk pages. Some of them may not be particularly notable in themselves, and might best be merged. Others could be expanded by other editors. In any event, they bear watching because Wikipedia is not your organization's web host. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned it up... I don't like it when people deposit stuff that clearly is not an encyclopedia article. But now it should be somewhat readable. --Rividian (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems OK to me now it has been tidied. Perhaps an addition of a photograph or image would help. Keep.Tinminer (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a verified geographical feature. I don't see how this can be called a "coatrack" when all of the article content, in both the original and current forms of the article, is directly relevant to the article subject. The only problem was with the article format, which is an issue for editing, as has been done, rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as an accessible SSSI, it seems notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

: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.