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 for now. New article, new user, a possible chance at notability. Bring it to a WikiProject, get some sourcing in there. If unsuccessful, bring it back here for nomination Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pawistik Lodge[edit]

Pawistik Lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  15:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; also, it's spammy. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article has been created by a user new to wikipedia, who had not up till now been welcomed or informed of wikipedia policy. He is now welcomed, and given advice on article writing, prose, citations, notability, and fishing articles in general. It may be wise to also inform the wikiproject on Fishing when a new user article is being considered for deletion. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A bit of quick research disclosed that indeed this lodge has some notability because it is associated with Scott Jeffery, a notable publisher in the Canadian Oil and Gas industry. As well the region and river in which the lodge is located is indeed rich is history. The article needs more sourcing, better organization, and should refrain from outright promotion of the lodge but otherwise should be retained.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2008 (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.