Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brook Run Skate 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 (non-admin closure) clear majority  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 18:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Brook Run Skate Park

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable skate park. Georgia guy (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it non-notable? It's 27,000 square feet. What do you consider notable? (BTW, I'm new to discussions, so please forgive me if I'm not following etiquette.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AZard (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Size doesn't matter. A single local news article does little to show that it is notable outside of it's area. What appears to be a blog, or at least a site run off user submissions is not typically seen as a reliable source. So far all we have is that it exists and it's 27,000 square feet. That's not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is big, but it isn't really notable (see WP:N). If it is kept, it's going to need a lot of work. Basketball  110   what famous people say  23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is the subject of multiple secondary independent sources, the prime criterion of WP:NOTABILITY. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has many stories on this topic.  .  There's no "notability in a local area means it's not notable" clause in WP:N. Nominating an article for deletion within 20 minutes of its creation is disruptive to improving articles and only discourages new editors. --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - afore mentioned papers satisfy WP:N and WP:V. When you find the 'Local' clause in WP:N you can point it out to me. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  13:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources in an AfD don't mean squat if they're not included in the article. There is still only one source that would be considered reliable. Not enough. The article still does not go any further that it exists. Noting to show why it is any more notable than any other skate park in the area. DarkAudit (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no "If the otherwise reliable sources that demonstrate notability aren't placed in the article then magically the sources don't exist" clause of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article, that thing we're all talking about, only has sources that says it exists, and only one of those is suitable. And AfD is not an article. No matter what is claimed in here, there has been absolutely no improvement to the article itself, which still fails guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article topic is what we're talking about. From WP:NOTABILITY: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  It doesn't say "an article", but "a topic."  We go by reliable sources to indicate notability, not an AfD nom claiming "it's not notable" when reliable secondary sources indicate the opposite.--Oakshade (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those sources are pay-to-view or discussion topics. going by whay I could gather from the teasers, the first two don't go any further than it's coming, it's now there, and it's big. Any new project will generate articles of this nature. There is nothing there to show that it is still notable once the newness wore off. DarkAudit (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they're pay-per-full-view. They could even be print-only and still be reliable sources.  All go beyond WP:NOTABILITY's definition of "trivial", ie passing mentions, directory listings, etc.. --Oakshade (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliability isn't all that's at issue. Two citations that could be about any project anywhere at the time they were going up. Articles that are as local as you get. That is not significant coverage. That leaves one article and a discussion board about neighbors concerned about noise. That is also not significant coverage. That is not enough to make this skate park any more notable than any other. That has still not been shown in spite of all the discussion in here. DarkAudit (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you're simply ignoring WP:NOTABILITY. Just because you think The Atlanta Journal-Constitution could've written "about any project anywhere" doesn't change the fact they wrote about this topic.  In fact, all skate parks are not written about by reliable sources as this one has.  That reliable source deemed this skate park notable (probably because if its size) and in turn WP:N deems it notable.  "Local" doesn't equate to "not significant coverage" in WP:N. If you wish it did, you need to bring that up to WP:NOTABILITY's talk page and not attempt to delete a specific article topic based on your desired criteria. --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is no different than any other paper writing about any new construction project. The Post-Gazette writes about new attractions at Kennywood. The Dominion-Post writes about the new Kroger in town being the largest grocery store in the state. They're covered once or twice as they're being built, and that's it. That's what you're presenting here. It's a news story for a day or two in one town. There doesn't appear to be anything else beyond the one article about noise since the place opened. That is not the significant press coverage asked for. There is still no proof that it is in any way notable above and beyond any other skate park. Just being built and covered as such by the local paper does NOT constitute significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're are simply not liking the secondary sources having written about his park. In fact, being built, opened and covered by reliable independent sources DOES constitute notability under WP:N.  You only brought up a Kroger as if that means that all skate parks are written about by secondary sources.  It doesn't.  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found this notable enough to write several articles about it.  If you don't like it passing the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, your opinion is allowed, but it's simply an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.  --Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I looked at the sources you provided, and I think they are not up to the coverage standard of WP:N. Why do you think I have something against that paper? Their coverage is not significant enough to rise to the level of an encyclopedia article. Covering a construction project like this is a dime a dozen, and every newspaper in the country does the same. I'm trying to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the coverage you've provided is nothing special or unique to that park compared to any other attraction in the area or the rest of the country. The AJC is reliable and verifiable, but not significant here. DarkAudit (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not bringing a straw man into this, are you? There has not been a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to keep this by anyone.  Just because you view the Atlanta Journal-Constitution pieces about this skate park as similar to coverage of other skate parks by other sources is irrelevant.  In no where of WP:NOTABILITY does it say anything like "If the secondary independent sources coverage is similar to other coverage about other similar topics, then the secondary sources can be ignored."  If you want such a provision, make that case on the WP:NOTABILITY talk page.  Just because there are other projects similar doesn't in any manner mean this topic should be deleted. --Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I meant I was trying to avoid that argument myself. If I brought up other AfD's, like the pool in Vancouver that had it's article deleted, I'd probably be setting myself up for that. Papers like the AJC, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the L.A. Times, etc., cover stuff like this all the time when the project is going up and is just opening. It's not unique. It's not special. And it's usually a canned article supplied by the location's PR folk. DarkAudit (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. I'm not opposed to the article remaining, IF it is substantially expanded with reliable and verifiable sources.  However, in its current state, it's nothing more than a stub (as I have just recently tagged it) and serves no purpose to the encyclopedia.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Several newspaper articles should satisfy the basic criteria of verifiable information. It is sometimes hard to draw the line between what constitutes significant coverage and what doesn't, but in this case I'm leaning toward keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to be fairly notable. —TreasuryTag talk  contribs  17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage in multiple articles in the AJC. Satisfies WP:N.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is a major newspaper and certainly constitutes a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. Chuck (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reliable, yes. Significant coverage? That's up for debate. The coverage cited is nothing special. Every major (and minor) newspaper covers projects like this when they're going up or opening. The citations given are a dime a dozen. What we're left with beyond that is an article about noise complaints. That's *not* notable. That's life in a large metropolitan area. DarkAudit (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Granted, what constitutes "significant" coverage is highly subjective. But we have at least 4 AJC articles about Brook Run (not merely mentioning Brook Run in the context of some other topic), even if they are short articles. That meets my threshold for significance. Chuck (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2008 (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.