Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point Wolstoncroft Sport and Recreation Centre

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 Lake Macquarie State Conservation Area. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point Wolstoncroft Sport and Recreation Centre

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

Delete because [add reason(s) here]. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lake Macquarie State Conservation Area. It is within the Point Wolstoncroft part of the conservation area but some searching has turned up little reliably sourced writing about it outside of the conservation area's management plan and website. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then add info about it to that page? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan......follow the link and look. You'll see the mention of it in the page. Where it was a couple of days before you left your comment. Peripitus (Talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I s'pose I should have looked. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I would say keep because the nominator did not give any reason for deletion and ORG doesnt apply to a physical entity. That said Peripitus redirect seems a reasonable idea pending somebody finding any reliable sources in the future.MilborneOne (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is what did or didn't do in the nomination of relevance in your own decision making? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying delete without an explanation is not really helpful to decided to support your proposal if we have no idea why you want it deleting. MilborneOne (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the obvious solution, until good sources can be found. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But redirect where? NSW Sport and Recreation, Point Wolstoncroft, Lake Macquarie State Conservation Area? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At 11:43, 7 May 2012 User:Mtparki stated on the talk page: This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is about a geographical location. The NSW government runs 11 sport and recreation centres that have significant local historical importance.--

It is not a geog feature. It is a building. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Or perhaps it is about a dozen buildings and large surrounding area. Either way it's not written about much independently but a redirect to the article (Lake Macquarie State Conservation Area) where it is mentioned seems sensible. Peripitus (Talk) 10:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a mention at that article I agree. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw and redirect as nominator. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:03, 10 May 2012 (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.