Talk:List of parks and gardens in Paris

This article was nominated for deletion on June 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

France: Paris Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed deleting map of parks and gardens[edit]

I would propose deleting the very large map of parks and gardens that was recently added to the article; it's much larger than any other image in the article, and, because it has no text or labels, it provides no other information about Paris parks, other than to show that Paris does in fact have them. I think the images of each park that are already there are more appropriate for this article. Unless someone comes up with a good reason for retaining it, I think it should be taken out. Anyone have comments on this? SiefkinDR (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]