Talk:Summerset at Frick Park

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because it addresses the notability criteria that was raised the last time it was deleted. It was covered by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/06/garden/on-top-of-mt-slag-homes-sprout.html), is a model for New Urbanism across the country, and is the city of Pittsburgh's largest housing development since the 1940's. All of these assert that it is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Lyndasw (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because this project is a successful example of urban land reclamation. It is a public private partnership that took a urban desert and created a mixed use housing development within the city limits of a dying city. The same industry that left the slag dump behind has shut down manufacturing and has lead to larger population declines in the city. The new urbanist movement is trending across the US and ignoring this development does not help students of city planning and community development understand the value of land reuse. The consulting firm that preformed some of the studies has a page about this project currently listed as does the the City of Pittsburgh which mentions this project. This is historic in that as a global trend we have major issues with farm land being developed for housing and this type of project proves that urban wasteland not rural farm land can be used for solving our ongoing housing needs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.66.168 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
The editor who flagged this for speedy deletion is off base using "G4":

''G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies.''

This article has been completely re-written since the 2007 article and cites numerous references that establish that it is notable. It is not identical in any way to the previous article. I have no affiliation or knowledge of the author who wrote the article two years ago and the new article passes N regardless. --Lyndasw (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I flagged it. I'm not an admin, so can't see the original version. Not to worry: if it's significantly different, then a reviewing admin will see the difference and the speedy will be declined. Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)