Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cobb County Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department

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. I considered the arguments for merging the article, but if this article is expanded to include basic information on all parks in the system, keeping it standalone would be the best way to present this information. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb County Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself, any content could be merged into the Cobb County article. Wizardman 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Cobb County, Georgia or, better if someone is prepared to create it, Government of Cobb County, Georgia. Government bodies have a degree of inherent notability and when a department/division isn't notable enough for a page then they should be merged to an over-view article. Perhaps this was a case to be bold and just do it? TerriersFan (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, specific information about a particular county department obviously doesn't belong in the main article on the county. Everyking (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sympathetic to this so I have refactored my recommendation. TerriersFan (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content couldn't be properly merged if you deleted the article... at this point it's articles for deletion, not articles for merger. --Rividian (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why Couldn't They?--JJ.Mike (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under the GFDL we have to maintain a list of all who contributed content to an article. --Rividian (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: We solved this shibboleth long ago: departments of counties fold into the counties' articles. Even if there is a major scandal with the department, the info stays with the parent county. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contributors could extend the main article. --JJ.Mike (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This AfD is baseless. Yes, it's still a collection of stubs, but I'm working on it, and I invite others to also. It is intended to have the basic history of the department itself and each park or other unit, such as size, when and how it was founded, and what basic features it has (i.e. greenspace, stream, dog park, fields, civic center, etc.). This is far too much information to put into the article for a county or city. –radiojon (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Radiojon, but consider moving to a "Parks in Cobb County" sort of article, I think this is more standard. --Rividian (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought about that, but this is about all of the system units, not just parks, and it does not include the city parks. –radiojon (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this article is currently a stub and not well developed, the scope of the article seems to be significant enough to meet the notability guidelines for a wikipedia article. Therefore this article should have been tagged for expansion rather than nominated for an AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2008 (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.