Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickles Park

:{{la|Pickles Park}} ([{{fullurl:Pickles Park|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickles Park}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unsourced article which I originally nominated as a G11 speedy candidate - the sentence at the bottom pretty much states that the article was created to to promote the initiative. The project is not complete (and may not even be underway) and the build up/planning of the development doesn't seem to have recieved the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to establish notability. Once completed it is possible that the development may meet the inclusion criteria but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Guest9999 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)'''

• Comment - Many changes since objections. Please have a look. Perhaps the article would be better titled to reflect the Internet's role in a changing world. In that instance the description would be placed on a pgae such as Urban Planner with a pointer to a Pickles Park as an example of the net's impact. Tomlzz1 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This will probably get some coverage in NYC papers but that shouldn't translate beyond local notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - As far as a dog park is concerned, there will not likely be any local newspaper coverage of the park's completion. It's just a small park. The significance lies in its being a tipping point for the urban planner's role in community relationships. Please guide me as to how I might better communicate that "wikipedia fashion." Tomlzz1 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not meet WP:NOTE policy. Specifically, General notability guideline titled "Independent of the subject".Ctempleton3 (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Same comment as above.Tomlzz1 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - City government sources have been linked in. Will add more when the city government entity, which is years behind on posting, makes them available. Tomlzz1 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

::Be that as it may, it doesn't meet WP:NOTE. It may have significance in a conceptual sort of way, but it needs secondary sources. More specifically, it needs specific media coverage. If the park becomes notable in the future, that will be another matter. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

:::The article has references to/from official government websites. And it has had coverage in local media - but as a park, not as a technology change force. Tomlzz1 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - aside from the fact that the article's creator fails to grasp Wiki markup correctly, this fails notability, has no reliable sources, is laden with original research and feels like its an advertisement for the dog park or at least a COI Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - My having a poor understanding of markup is no reason to eliminate an article. If it seems like advertising for the park, I'll be glad to eliminate it ~ "A small park in Queens"? What the article does is inform about technology's impact and the ways it can change a profession's role. At least that's my intention. If I've not communicated that, please advise as to how I might repair. Hoping Urban Planners join me. Tomlzz1 (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

::I said "aside" meaning that was my personal opinion. Its per WP:NOT#ADVERT and everything else I said. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "per nom"? Please explain. Tomlzz1 (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

:I don't know if you know this, but "per nom" means "I agree with what the nominator for deletion said in his initial summary" Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Merge The asserted notability is more about the process than the park itself so a merge to Queens Community Board 3 as a section in that too-small article is in order. The actual park lacks sufficient notability for a standalone article. - Dravecky (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

: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.