Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Vista 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. The article's subject is found to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Lake Vista Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article, relying entirely on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (Google Maps, own website, etc.) with not a shred of reliable source coverage, of a neighborhood association in a city of approximately 130K. Nearly every city of this size has a dozen or more such local committees — so organizations at this highly localized level of activity are not granted an automatic entitlement to keep an unsourced or primary-sourced article just because they exist, but rather need to demonstrate enough reliable source coverage to get them over WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG. Further, this has been tagged for sourcing and notability issues since 2011, with almost no appreciable improvement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't know what happened to this article or where it went wrong. The article clearly started as an article about the place, per the title. Somewhere along the line, the article morphed into an article about the non-notable neighbourhood association that governs it. I think the place might be notable, but the organisation isn't.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Worked it out - this edit changed the context (back in 2012). From that point forward, the article has been about the association, rather than the place.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though even if we converted this back to an article about the geographic neighbourhood instead of the organization, I'd still argue that every individual neighbourhood in a city of 130K doesn't really need its own independent article — especially if the best we could do for sourcing would likely be the local community weekly paper. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. As I said, it might be notable but I couldn't really find anything substantive for the place either. I wouldn't have a problem with deletion, then, just want to be clear about what we're deleting.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:09, 22 March 2015 (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.