Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fog Lane 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   Delete.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fog Lane Park

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

Article fails to establish the notability of what appears to be an unremarkable public park. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * support - I agree with the above comment. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per nom Pit-yacker (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge -- it is difficult to tell from such a slifght stub whether it is notable or not. In my experiecne the best solution for articles on minor geographic features is to merge them with an article on the area where they are located.  In that way the information is retained, but the temptation for inconsequential details to be added is reduced.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be curious to know what information there is in this article that you believe ought to be merged with any other article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I beleive the entire (short text) could conveniently be added to an article on the locality. Peterkingiron (talk)


 * Delete per initial description - maybe it belongs in Wikitravel. Simesa (talk) 23:36, 10 September 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.