Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middleton Park, Yagoona

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton Park, Yagoona[edit]

Middleton Park, Yagoona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG. only primary sources provided. Parks are not inherently notable, nor do I see it being notable for hosting an amateur team. also whilst adding ", Yagoona" might be a disambiguation there are other Middleton Parks in the world so a redirect will cause confusion. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, probably to Yagoona, New South Wales#Parks where it is mentioned already. The brief discussion and the three references can be merged to there. We should always be looking for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion and this is a good option here. Also, I sort of think parks are inherently notable, and this is more than a tiny corner park, it has two regulation football fields and is a public attraction that is going to be listed in newspaper events columns, etc. If merged, the redirect left behind will not "cause confusion" (or please explain, how would it cause confusion?) --doncram 23:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing to merge given it's simply a few sentences, anything that could be simply added to anything else, what's here is simply a guide listing and we never accept those in policy. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suppose - as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Neill Park. Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing makes this park notable, it's WP:MILL. MB 21:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. None of the "Delete" votes contains any reason why this should not be redirected/merged. Redirect/merge is simply better than Delete. It is certainly possible for a reader to be looking for the Middleton Park in Yagoona; they do not know the obscure Wikipedia rules/processes about whether something is deemed Wikipedia-notable or not. I voted "Merge" above and I do think it is marginally notable, as many parks are. Leaving a redirect behind permits re-creation of article with edit history intact if/when there is more coverage/material/sources on the topic. --doncram 22:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
nice try but the consensus is clearly delete, if people want redirect/merge they would say that. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You come across as glib/gleeful about winning something here, rather than civil. Would you mind telling me why you think a redirect is not appropriate, please? --doncram 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in WP:CONSENSUS. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which states that quality of argument matters. This is not a majority vote, and it should not be a wp:BATTLEGROUND. It remains that neither LibStar nor any other editor has an argument (not a valid argument IMO) against there being a redirect/merge. --doncram 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sure it's not a majority vote but so far no one agrees with you, so you're clutching at straws to say you have a winning consensus here. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Normally I'd be happy with a redirect, but is this truly a plausible search term? Is anyone going to type in "Middleton Park, Yagoona" in a blind search? In the highly unlikely event that this park becomes unambiguously notable in the future and we need the history, it can be undeleted easily enough. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • It is perfectly likely that someone would type in "Middleton Park" and then they would see that, among suggested drop-down options, there is "Middleton Park, Yagoona". And/or they might get to the primary Middleton Park article and find their way to Middleton Park (disambiguation) and thence to it. --doncram 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I think we have to agree to disagree on this and let the closing admin sort things out; I think that the scenario you outline is pretty unlikely. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I usually prefer a merge/redirect, but in this case there is absolutely nothing much to merge. I also do not prefer a redirect as the argument for a plausible search term is no longer valid with the advent of Google's semantic search. Someone searching "Middleton Park, Yagoona" in Google will get Yagoona as the first search result. Considering that redirects are costly, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Middleton_Park,_Yagoona&oldid=1089525017"