Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playground 52

: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. v/r - TP 00:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

=[[Playground 52]]=

:{{la|Playground 52}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Playground 52}})

Serious lack of notability. It's a playground. And that's all the text says about it. Probably speediable, but thought I'd give it the benefit of the doubt just in case there's something worth keeping about it. Grutness...wha? 09:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep (full confessions: I created this stub). There's no doubt that this is not the most important park in the Bronx, nor the most exciting article. That said, the park is notable enough to get an article about it in the NY Times (cited in the article), mention on some music website (http://www.reverbnation.com/venue/8--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)08514), an arts website (http://www.placematters.net/node/976) and a few checkins on foursquare (https://foursquare.com/venue/18591302). I think that (just barely) meets Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline. Might make sense to rename this to be 52 Park. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • OK - I'll do you a deal :) As it stands it looks completely non-notable, and if it stays that way it would be deletable. - but if you can add something to the article to make it look notable, I'll withdraw the nom. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I did a little work. If I can find something more that's worth adding, I will. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete It just doesn't seem notable, and the lack of content on the page just seems to emphasize that fact. Sorry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2011 (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.