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) Mediran (t • c) 01:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critter Country[edit]

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

This is simply one part of the massive Disneyland in California and does not have enough gravitas to stand on its own. In short, it is simply not Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Keep, see below) Not independently notable. I was going to suggest a redirect, but since there is a Critter Country in several different Disney parks it is not obvious what the redirect target should be.--MelanieN (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is part of a series of organized articles on Disney (see the nav templates on them all). Also, nom is wrong, in that this theme section also exists at the Toyko facility.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organized puff pieces, you mean. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they can't stand improvement, there is an incredible amount published about these places, 1000 year old Buddhist shrines could never compete.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a shot at rewriting some of the body of the article. Critter Country/Bear Country appears to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which would at least satisfy WP:GNG. I think enough material exists to warrant a standalone page. Gong show 08:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Gongshow.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. I am unaware of any stricter limiting notability guideline for the subject of this AfD. Article appears to be a sub-article of two other articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sourcing showing in the footnotes for a GNG pass. Note also that this is a sub-page, intended to help keep the main topic from becoming unwieldy. Carrite (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the significant improvement to the article and its sourcing by Gongshow. Good work! --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's at two parks, not just one, and like pretty much everything from Disney it's received plenty of coverage, not surprisingly since it's been around for 40 years and visited by millions each year. While it's generally poor form to say to keep something because similar articles exists, in this case our coverage of Disney attractions is actually really comprehensive and generally excellent, and if the nom or anyone thinks the level of coverage should be reduced it makes more sense to discuss that as a larger issue rather than to snipe a single article out of dozens seemingly at random. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received reliable coverage. Obviously. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:31, 17 March 2013 (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.