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.
Would the Canadian Border Control as a source do the trick? It may be a small article but if you could find a source, it might not be worth deleting.
JustAPoliticsNerd (
talk)
03:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sourcing doesn't really matter as long as the content can be easily merged to the border crossing article: there's no reason to split it into one article for each side of the crossing, and another for the crossing itself. It just splits the sources.
Mrfoogles (
talk)
07:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm glad you also included the information at
Moyie River, but I don't think this should be included here or that it justifies this article. This is not significant coverage, it just identifies the place, which is the border crossing area. They have
199 locations where water was tested, and this primary source data isn't the sort of thing that belongs in the articles of each sampling site. The border crossing article should certainly mention it's along the river though.
Reywas92Talk15:12, 26 June 2024 (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.