Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of city parks of Allentown, Pennsylvania

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of city parks of Allentown, Pennsylvania[edit]

A list of non-notable parks, including several play lots. There is nothing to merge, since it appears none of the subjects meet Wikipedia standards for notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unsourced; but seems to suggest that use of those city parks is limited to city residents, which would be unusual for the US and probably, therefore, notable. But maybe I'm reading too much into an unsourced one-line introduction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you misread the opening line. It states they are public parks, which would make them accessible to all people. If they were private parks, access to their grounds would be limited. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a travel guide or a city guide. Corpx (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me expand by adding that Wikipedia is not a directory of parks/hospitals/police stations or other public utilities in a town. This kind of information belongs in a phone book, and not an encyclopedia Corpx (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Items on a list don't have to be notable, just significant and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individually, the parks of a town the size of Allentown are likely to have some good sourcing, such as these book references to West Park: [1], [2], . But collectively, they have certainly been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, such as the New York Times: [3] or the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: [4]. The book [5] mentioned earlier has significant coverage of several of the parks. The list could be improved by adding additional data fields such as date established, size, and special features, along with an introductory paragraph. Edison (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the work done by Edison to show relevent sources. Well done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the list is verifiable, it is helpful for Allentown, Pennsylvania#Parks and recreation article. It should be improved with more detail by area of the parks or even tree types. Public spaces aren't within Yellow pages category where time dependant professionals' being listed. Kasaalan (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand introduction, add a bit of detail about the parks (e.g. size, location, notable features, etc) and add cite the sources for all of it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as spruced up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:27, 11 June 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.