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. Thanks for improvements to the article over this AFD. LizRead!Talk! 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I will vote Keep for now given the sources I've managed to find and no explanation on why it fails GNG.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 02:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This appears to be a park that is often used for public gatherings and protests alongside being frequently mentioned in information about local history. Still not seeing how this fails notability.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 06:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I prefer seeing the article about Brewster Gardens being merged into the article about Plymouth, Massachuetts. Anonymous (
talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic demonstrably does meet GNG. Vacuous nominations should be closed down, not voted on.
Thincat (
talk) 10:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I just added a sentence and sourcing by the North and Source Rivers Watershed Association. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the article. Part of the visual problem with article, was that all the tagging notices took up about three times more space than the actual article wording. But the source I added leaves no doubt that this is a pretty notable area park.
— Maile (
talk) 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have just cleaned up and resourced this article. It should at least pass basic requirements for a Keep. It seemed to have originally been created by a good faith editor.
— Maile (
talk) 22:06, 9 June 2024 (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.
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. Thanks for improvements to the article over this AFD. LizRead!Talk! 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I will vote Keep for now given the sources I've managed to find and no explanation on why it fails GNG.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 02:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)reply
This appears to be a park that is often used for public gatherings and protests alongside being frequently mentioned in information about local history. Still not seeing how this fails notability.
Traumnovelle (
talk) 06:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete: I prefer seeing the article about Brewster Gardens being merged into the article about Plymouth, Massachuetts. Anonymous (
talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic demonstrably does meet GNG. Vacuous nominations should be closed down, not voted on.
Thincat (
talk) 10:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I just added a sentence and sourcing by the North and Source Rivers Watershed Association. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the article. Part of the visual problem with article, was that all the tagging notices took up about three times more space than the actual article wording. But the source I added leaves no doubt that this is a pretty notable area park.
— Maile (
talk) 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have just cleaned up and resourced this article. It should at least pass basic requirements for a Keep. It seemed to have originally been created by a good faith editor.
— Maile (
talk) 22:06, 9 June 2024 (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.