Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairmont Park, San Diego

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. postdlf (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmont Park, San Diego[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because Fairmont Park, like other neighborhoods, is not notable. There are no citation establishing that either. Citrusbowler (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Redirect to List of communities and neighborhoods of San Diego; subject has received passing mention in reliable sources, but nothing that I would say is significant coverage. However, per WP:GEOLAND, the subject is notable (an essay); as I have never cited GEOLAND and I am unsure whether it is highly received or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The issue with the redirect is that it removes all information and, on the redirected-to page, there is no information. The article has some notablitity, although it needs a major cleanup. Uberaccount (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and make a redirect. That's the better option it seems. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in my opinion, the issue with merging is that the merged-to page is just a list and will keep none of the information on the page. Uberaccount (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ (changing to Keep, see below) to City Heights, San Diego, the planning area of which it is a part. I dispute the nominator's claim that neighborhoods are not notable: some are, some aren't, they are subject to GNG like anything else. In this case, Fairmont Park is a real neighborhood recognized by the city, but it does not seem to have attracted enough notice to qualify for an article. All I could find in a Google News search was occasional references to a crime happening there. I did add the information about the community plan area and the city council district to the article, so that even if it is redirected, the information will be retrievable for possible future expansion back into an article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The name of the neighborhood is misspelled in the title. Per city sources [1] the name is actually Fairmount Park (with a "u"). I'm not going to move it in the middle of an AfD discussion because I understand that screws things up for the closing administrator, but if the article is kept or redirected the name should be changed to Fairmount Park, San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - mostly because mainstream news sources like U-T San Diego (here) and MSNBC (here) recognise it as a place and seem confident enough to refer to it by name without any qualifications, caveats, explanations or directions. Unlike other neighbourhood names created by real estate agents to avoid using the names of less-popular areas (and as highlighted above), this one is recognised by the city. I wouldn't strongly oppose a merge, but I also think there is justification for keeping it. Stalwart111 10:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion to Keep per the new sources found by Stalwart. Adding those to the sources I previously found searching under the misspelled name Fairmont Park [2] [3] it appears that this is a generally recognized neighborhood of San Diego and worthy of a stub article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2013 (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.