Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lysterfield 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. JForget 03:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lysterfield Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

It looks to me that this park is not notable. It currently does not have any real sources, and I'm not sure it ever will. It should probably be a section in a list of such places. Becritical (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment While I haven't carried out a search for sources in any depth, I would have said this is one of the more significant bushland parks in Melbourne and would certainly be notable. It is managed in conjuction with neighbouring Churchill National Park so perhaps it could be merged there? -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added two references. - Eastmain (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks sufficient to me. Part of the reason for having sources is of course so people can see how important/notable it is.  It looked to me like a nothing..... a city park or something, which might not be mentioned anywhere.  I thought someone just put up the article because they live right beside it. Becritical (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - article is now a tidy, referenced stub and the subject appears notable. Wexcan Talk  17:24, 31 December 2009 (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.