Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Fenway 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 redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Fenway Park[edit]

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

Content forking. Prod contested by IP. All of the content here is covered in greater detail in one paragraph in Fenway Park. As a proposed park, it never got off the drawing board. It is not encyclopedic enough to merit an entire article that consists of one line and five external links of questionable utility. MSJapan (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more than enough material to expand it, but I also would not object to a redirect, as it would preserve the article's history. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only content is that it was proposed and abandoned.. That can easily be covered at the Fenway article. Unlikely search term so redirect is not needed. Spanneraol (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park. Fenway Park is one of the most visible icons in American (sports) culture. It makes sense that our readers, and quite few of them, would be looking for "New Fenway Park". However, I am not convinced that this alone warrants a separate article. This seems to be a failed proposal. I cannot justify Wikipedia collecting failed proposals, no matter how many reliable sources cover it. So, while it is reasonable to believe that readers would be searching for "New Fenway Park", I believe simply redirecting readers to the (relatively substantial) section in the main Fenway Park article would be more profitable, for us and them. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there were something really substantial that could be written and sourced about it, to the point that it was actually carrying WP:UNDUE weight in the main article, then it would certainly merit its own spinoff article. But if all we can write is two sentences asserting that it was proposed but then cancelled, the end, then that's just not an article we need to retain. Redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park; no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody's willing to put the effort into writing an article that's worth something. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I don't give a tinker's damn about the article's history (what makes preserving it a virtue?), but it'd be a valid redirect, and as others have said, the pertinent content would take all of about two sentences in the main article to capture. Ravenswing 11:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Seems like a valid search term but for now can be addressed within the Fenway Park article. Rlendog (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; Fenway Park#New Fenway Park is better-written and -referenced. No need to delete the history, which is harmless. —Cryptic 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park. A proposed replacement stadium for Fenway Park that never left the drawing board. The attempted effort can probably best be handled with a brief sentence or two at the main Fenway Park article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Fenway Park#New Fenway Park, I agree this would be the best move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 19 July 2015 (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.