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. A merge is an option as well. Deletion is not an issue so I am closing the debate. Tone 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

School paper on a non-notable topic; appears to have been graded at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, presumably by the teacher or prof who assigned it. Not encyclopedic content for anything but a Dryden wiki. Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-encyclopedic -Drdisque (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is well-referenced and the topic has attracted national attention in Canada. This is not a purely local topic. – Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. _{– Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{– Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
• Merge to Dryden, Ontario. The topic may not be notable enough for a stand alone article, but it is referenced. It is worthy of a section in the main article. Tavix |  Talk  00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perhaps the name of the article is awkward and has an obscure sound to it, and perhaps this is covered in another article, but what I see is about a location that sustained significant industrial pollution damage from the source of its jobs. In the United States, this would probably be a Superfund site. The content is encyclopedic enough, and the article may seem bland because of efforts to avoid POV problems, but I think that a new title wouldn't hurt. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dryden, Ontario, as indicated by Tavix. Pdcook (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article could use some cleanup, but there is enough well-referenced material here for a standalone article. LadyofShalott 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per Tavix, but I'd be ok with a keep, as well. The historical importance of the industry in Dryden and its environmental aftermath would greatly add to the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Agreed with Merge reasons indicated above. LoudHowie (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Eastmain and Mandsford.This already has more than enough content for a standalone article, and it would be outsized for the Dryden Ontariio page if incorporated whole (I've copyedited and added a bit, and the articles are nearly the same size).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dryden, Ontario. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Dryden, Ontario. --Kevinharte (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While this might have started out as a school project, what we have now is a well-sourced article on a notable topic. The environmental damage caused by this industry is long-lasting, and significant enough to justify its own article. Dryden, Ontario should link here (which it does), not include this level of discussion. The name is unwieldy, but any problems here can be fixed by a much less severe remedy than deletion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable topic, and the article contains a sufficient amount of referenced content to stand as its own page. Would accept a merge as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:56, 30 November 2009 (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.