Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Andrews Reserve


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Dandenong Thunder SC. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

George Andrews Reserve

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG and GEOFEAT. Except a single external link to the obviously non-RS and rotten My Space link, this article is completely unsourced. My before search found trivial mentions (e.g., 1) and non-SIGCOV listings (e.g., from the local council). As such, I am proposing a redirect to Dandenong Thunder SC. However, a previous BLAR was contested (see history), and a previous incorrect A7 tag was declined, so AfD is better than BLARing again. I am surprised that this also passed NPP.  VickKiang  (talk)  02:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  VickKiang   (talk)  02:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested. Article doesn't currently meet GNG and I can't find any substantial sources. MarchOfThe  Greyhounds  09:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dandenong Thunder SC as possible search term. GiantSnowman 19:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Badly constructed article, as the article should be about the whole reserve, the nominator posted the link which shows this should be a WP:GEONATURAL, WP:GEOPURP article. Article needs a total rewrite. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But both GEONATURAL and GEOPURP still require proper sources, which we're still not seeing. The link there is a database listing from the local government, so doesn't really count for anything. MarchOfThe  Greyhounds  23:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think WP:GEONATURAL applies since this appears to be a sports reserve with mainly artificial features outlined in the facilities (Basketball Court, Pavilion,Picnic Area, Playground, Public toilet, Soccer Fields, Tennis Court), so IMO GEOFEAT applies more, which requires a GNG pass, instead applies. I agree that natural reserves and natural parks should be evaluated using GEONATURAL, but this is not one of that case.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I take it you've not been down there, seen the trail, woodland, birds, wildlife etc? It's a massive area. Govvy (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How is the fact that I've not been down there relevant? (btw I had a look at Google Maps at a scale of 200m and got a completely different impression that it's a "huge area"). But in any case, reliable sourcing meeting SIGCOV is required to meet both GNG, GEOFEAT, and even if we apply GEONATURAL the sourcing I can find are IMO inadequate. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if we do apply GEONATURAL, that doesn't guarantee notability. It just says these features are often notable. MarchOfThe  Greyhounds  07:52, 23 September 2023 (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.