Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amesbury Sports Park

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 merge to Amesbury, Massachusetts. No consensus to delete or keep, but a strong case is made to merge into the Amesbury, Massachusetts article. Looking through the sources provided by Shinmawa, most are weak/press release-y, (local newspapers will quickly pick up a press release and put it in their "news" section to fill space) but they are reliable sources, in a sense, and could easily be used to build a section into the city article. So, reliable, but not necessarily showing overwhelming notability. Therefore, closing this as merge. Keeper | 76 14:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amesbury Sports Park

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

procedural nom for AFD as I declined the A7, but notability clearly is in question. At the moment, I am neutral. Go Phightins! 20:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A quick browse shows a quite a number of news and other references about the park itself (as well as a fair number of announcements of events at the park, which were discounted). I feel this article passes WP:GNG -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject may very well be notable but the article does not prove it. Roger (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So improve the article. A start class article isn't really justification for deletion. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By what realistic standard does it qualify for a Start class rating? It's only ref is to a non-RS personal fansite. Roger (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Stub-class then. Same point stands. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at AfD because it is a stub/start or whatever, it's here because it does not currently comply with WP:Notability. If you're really serious about keeping the article you should add a few cites to reliable sources, that would settle the matter. Roger (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the argument is moving away from the fact the article is a stub to the availability of reliable sources, might I oblige? A few about its history and ownership: [1][2][3] [4] A few about its annual Brewfest, which seems to be a Big Thing(tm): [5][6][7][8] Something to do with "zorbing": [9][10] This was just from a quick look and, of course, I discounted the mountain of run-of-the-mill announcements of non-major events at the park, obvious press releases, groupon links, yelp reviews, etc. I've never been to Amesbury so I've no personal stake here. -- ShinmaWa^(talk)

Keep - Well known, historic, visible recreational facility. Jrclark (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That must be one of the emptiest "arguments" ever presented at an AFD. Practically every second word of the statement could do with a "cite needed" tag. Roger (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it is really so well known and notable why is the article such a miserable inconsequential waste of server space devoid of so much as even the shadow of any attempt at even trying to demonstrate notability? It's time to "put up or shut up" for this "article". Roger (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for volunteering. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're mistaking me for someone who has an interest in the article's survival, I'm the editor who originally Speedied it. If you want it kept, you can fix it. (It's way past my bedtime anyway, g'nite...) Roger (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 10:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the ownership change was briefly noted by the [very] local media, but no notability is asserted, likely because there's none to assert. Having read all the sources this just seems to be a piece of land with a gentle hill that people can roll down in a ball. It's no more notable than the local parks that every town has, and indeed a good deal less notable than most of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. – SJ + 02:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It really doesn't, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a yet to be created subsection of Amesbury, Massachusetts titled 'Recreation'. The sources cited by ShinmaWa are enough for inclusion somewhere but not enough to establish standalone notability (blogs, local papers). J04n(talk page) 01:14, 28 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.