Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sculpture Parks


 * 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 of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Sculpture Parks
Redundant with "Category:Sculpture gardens, trails and parks", adds no new information to the list present in the Category page. Also is currently unreferenced and has no incoming links. Suggest deleting the list page unless it can be expanded to contain information not available in the Category listing. Dugwiki 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it needs expanding. I'm going to add  to it in order that its nature can be better seen, and hope this also inspires the creator.  In an ideal world the category and the list would be congruent, but this doesn't happen.  We often have the issue of a list and a category being intersecting sets.  Having said this, a "pure list" is no advance on a category, hence the need for expansion. I understand your "no incoming links" comment.  I see no harm in revisiting this article in a few months.  No change by then means delete, in my view Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done a little work on this page including linking it from the parks it lists, and added a park. Fg2, below, has also added a park location. I can see it starting to build into a really useful list, and being so much better than a just a category in that brief descriptions can be included.  I don't really fancy going to town on it until this discussion reaches consensus, however, though I may well add a park or two over the next couple of days.  I've removed the  tag because it isn't.  Not any more.  I've also sent a message to the creator asking him to stop by and have a look, though it is not his "responsibility" to do anything. Fiddle Faddle 06:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure, it needs expanding, but lists can be so much more than categories. Fg2 04:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs expansion. Anonymous_  _Anonymous  09:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like the format of the page has expanded a bit since I flagged it for review. Fiddle Faddle has started adding brief descriptions of the park to the list, which is information that wouldn't appear directly on the category page.  Since lack of additional information compared to a category was my main concern, I'm voting to keep the page on the assumption that other summaries and info will be added moving forward. Dugwiki
 * Question re process: Now the nominator has suggested we keep the article, and seeing no current dissenting voices, may we close this AfD discussion early to allow editing of the article with confidence that it will not go?  I am unsure of procedure here, but believe this article need take up no more community time.  Editing time woudl be well spent, though :) Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 23 June 2006 (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.