Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onondaga 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 keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onondaga Park[edit]

Onondaga Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete nn city park, unsourced, with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:N due to lack of references. Woulda' been easier just to WP:PROD it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC) New comment below. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • some admins refuse to delete any geographical articles via Prod; here its up to the whole community not a single admin. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Good point. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NRHP listed place #02001657 [1]. Deletion guidelines recommending check what links there before proposing deletion. Its presense on List of Registered Historic Places in Onondaga County, New York was a big hint. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, NRHP makes it notable (for landscape architecture, apparently). --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The NRHP has much higher inclusion standards than Wikipedia. If something is notable to them, its very notable here. --Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NRHP notability. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As said above it IS notable because it appears on the National Register of Historic Places.--Mifter (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks much better now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it's listed in NRHP, then it passes WP:N in my view. ArcAngel (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NRHP. That's just about the biggest claim of notability for a park, I think. -WarthogDemon 18:00, 21 March 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.