Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. P. Schnabel 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O. P. Schnabel Park[edit]

Article does not assert notability and does not cite any sources. Unless there are separate criteria for city-run parks that I don't know about, I don't think this belongs here. Firestorm (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Firestorm (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to fail WP:NOTE. The article fails to stress why the park is notable in the first place (is it a major landmark? Did something historic happen here?). From Googling, it also appears that the park is not exactly that notable except for the fact it has oak trees... ThePointblank (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree that nothing notable is mentioned yet, I feel as if it should be marked as a stub. Those 202 acres were named after 'O. P. Schnabel' for some reason - it's just not written down. I've searched online and found this place to be real, and references do exist which discuss history. Tevonic (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Chances are that it was named after that person because, like most namings of buildings or parks, etc, he donated a significant amount of money to its creation, or donated the land. That doesn't make any claim of being notable - thousands of buildings and parks have been named after the people who paid for them. Firestorm (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the notability of the person the park was named after may be questionable, but a ~200 acre area of any city is something notable. Nearby residents will certainly view this page at some time or another. This article could be expanded with coordinates, images, and a more detailed history. That being said, my position is fairly neutral. I'll add what I can to it for now. Tevonic (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This park doesn't seem to be historically notable, but it is apparently one the 'most popular parks in San Antonio' for what that's worth (http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.aspx?trailid=HGS458-026) Esc861 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the new additions to this article do make a good case for its being kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esc861 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 9 January 2009 (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.