Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bow Creek Ecology 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bow Creek Ecology Park

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non-notable small park. De-prodded with additional references to having won the "The Green Flag Award", but this is not a real award, as it is only the benchmark national standard for parks and green spaces in the United Kingdom - and it does not establish the park to be in anyway notable. This park may have some small amount of local interest, but it fails WP:GNG. Gorrad (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep though it's arguably true that this is only of local interest, the same could be said of any park: Central Park is of little impact to residents of Duluth or Seoul, after all. I'm not wholly convinced that the Green Flag isn't a "real" award either, as the site says "The deadline for voting for the People's Choice Award has now passed."  My gut instinct is that this seems to be just barely notable, but it's definitely borderline. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm the article creator, so perhaps naturally I'd say keep. As there's (still) no notability guidelines for places, we're obviously just using the GNG; significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I don't think there's much need to discuss whether the sources in the article or that I've included below are independent or reliable; critical is whether the coverage is significant. The GNG states that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. (emphasis mine) I'm pretty sure the Green Flag Awards are proper awards, though they are also a quality benchmark. Places have to be nominated and approved. The awarding of the Green Flag lead a fairly substantial piece in the Evening Stardard, which I think meets the GNG. The UK Landscape Award is certainly a proper award (and I'm rather surprised there isn't an article on WP about it, one for the list). Whilst not a particularly big entry, the inclusion in [Royal Docks Trust] page would pass the GNG. Events there have also merited a mention in Time Out though this is an event listing website, so not necessarily an indication of notability. It's additionally mentioned via the BBC's Breathing Spaces website . I think this demonstrates several sources that meet the GNG.  Ged  UK  10:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Newham parks and open spaces. There is a weak claim to notability, but as there's about 3-4 sentences worth on encyclopaedic information in the article at most, its best home is in an article covering all the open spaces in the borough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: I'm a British local government employee, and it's part of my job (among other things) to manage and finance open spaces like this. I'm too close to the subject so I probably ought to recuse from actually typing out any words in bold, but I wanted to say that the Green Flag Awards are given by a quango which is financially supported by the DCLG.  (Translation for non-Brits: Her Majesty's government pays Green Flag to make an objective assessment of the parks and open spaces that apply.)  It's not a commercial award and, I can attest from personal knowledge, it's far from easy to obtain.  I would view the Green Flag Award as a genuine badge of notability.  This park will be very small, but being where it is and having the awards it has, it's tolerably important for its size.— S Marshall  T/C 00:35, 18 November 2010 (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.