Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parking crater


 * 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 merge to Parking lot. The current consensus seems to be to merge the relevant portions into the Parking Lot article. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 20:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Parking crater

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POV fork, essentially a duplication of other article's subject. Anmccaff (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit amusing to me that the creator won't even link to Parking lot in the first sentence, relegating it to see also. I'd say redirect to Parking lot since we do seem to have some popular usage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, as drivers will park anywhere i initially thought this would be a discussion about how quickly they us a space cleared by an asteroid impact, anyhow this looks like a redirect and a couple of sentences at Parking lot.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Greetings from Europe! While it sounds like the existence of this type of "crater" is a foregone conclusion in North America, I found the concept interesting as an outsider, since I don't believe we have many of these here. That said, the current article clearly has some flaws. I would suggest keeping the article, adding academic citations to balance the popular ones and putting up a neutrality flag. And yes, as Shawn in Montreal said, they should link out to the page for Parking Lots early in the article. If I have time, I'll go ahead and make those changes soon. Cajunerich (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it that some articles attract so many single-purpose accounts? Anmccaff (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Anmccaff. I can't speak for others, but in my case, the deletion suggestion itself was what brought me here. A CityLab article on the parking crater in Los Angeles was shared with me by a friend who lives there, and I had never heard the term before, so I looked up more information about it. Seeing that the page was about to be deleted was enough to prompt me to sign up for an account and put my vote in for the page's survival. Now there is of course no easy way to prove that I'm in Europe, but if you look at the timestamps on my posts, they would indicate at the very least a pretty dedicated American user, since that type of thing would involve either staying up very late or getting up very early to type! As I said, that's not by any stretch an air-tight proof of location, but I hope it helps. Cheers! Cajunerich (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is to say, possibly knowing nothing about how wiki works, you came in -coming from the country that contemporaneously destroyed one of the last intact medieval cities to get some low grade lignite, made a snotty remark about North America? Hmmm.
 * It's a bad thing to have a single thing covered in different articles, because they tend to become focused different ways. The idea that vasty fields of asphalt might not improve a central business district, and, that, indeed, a central business district need not be restricted to 9-5 uses needs to be in the main article, whatever that may be.  If it's in the apropriate article, why should it be duplicated? And why, especially, should it be duplicated under a tendentious name? Anmccaff (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like I unintentionally touched a nerve, and for that I am sorry. Both of our countries have made plenty of policy mistakes in the past and will surely continue to make policy mistakes in the future. I was in no way trying to offend, and I assure you that I merely found the topic interesting, since we have parking lots here but generally lack what would be considered "parking craters," if I am understanding the term correctly. As for the choice of which term to use, it seems that "parking craters" is the phrase people are generally using to describe this phenomenon. If there's a more neutral term that's already being used in the "parking lots" article to describe this phenomenon, it might be worth mentioning here, so that any eventual merge edits can be made in that part of the page, rather than being duplicated elsewhere in what appears to be a fairly long article. I would modestly suggest that if this phenomenon is not yet mentioned on that parking lots page, you might put a sentence or two in, linking out to the page we're debating for more context. I again assure you: No snark or snottiness was intended, but I think this phenomenon is very much worth documenting.
 * In any case, though, it looks like I have a secondary problem: Someone appears to think I'm some guy from Chicago. I could say that I ate Kaufland corn flakes for breakfast today, had Birell with my lunch and went hiking in the local mountains in the afternoon, and while all of those things would be true, you would have to take my word for it, which I don't think I can reasonably expect you to do. In light of that doubt, I'm going to hold off on making any of the edits I mentioned above, since there's a very high chance that they would be considered suspect anyway and/or reversed. I've submitted my opinion on this talk page, which was the main point of registering anyway. I leave it to others to decide how this plays out. Good luck. Cajunerich (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there's good news; the secondary problem is quite easy to fix. Simply mention there that you ain't involved. Remember, no one said -you- individually were a sock puppet, meat puppet, or canvased in, merely that the number of people surfacing suggested something else was going on.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)wa


 * Merge into parking lot. I agree this seems too much like a POV push. I think merging it into the parent article seems like a better way to keep it up to date and avoid POV issues.  It also seems too narrow in scope to be stand alone. Springee (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Parking lot. There does appear to be some traction for the term, but I don't see how the subtle and somewhat subjective differences in the choice of term justify a standalone article. -- Kinu  t/c 16:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The Parking lot article is about, well, parking lots - individual lots and various attributes of them (although the "parking minimum" section does touch upon larger issues). This article is more about large areas of cities devoid of buildings due to the placement of large parking lots. The current article is lousy, and should focus much more on the sociological/urban planning/historical preservation aspects. A parking lot can be small and can be anywhere (urban/suburban/rural). A parking "crater" can only be in a city and is large enough to stand out as an area "missing" the buildings that would otherwise be expected. I don't think this difference is subtle. Searching shows much usage of the term going back at least 5 years. Here is an example about Tulsa changing zoning laws to discourage demolition of buildings for parking . Here is a link with more background and the supposed origin of the term . MB 05:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you clean up and improve the relevant articles, they'll come to mirror each other, and what use is that? The effects of mega-parking, real and imaginary, on cities belongs on Wiki; it just doesn't belong in a piece of partisan POV-pushing polemic. The term "parking crater" is used and meant to be used as a loaded term; that isn't appropriate for an article, any more than Ford Exploder, Hellary Rod-man or Der Manatee-Fuhrer would be. Anmccaff (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy (WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING) say the common name should be used even if there is an appearance of bias. Searching on "Parking Crater" returns dozens of hits. That is the term a reader would be expected to search for in WP if looking for more information. The article certainly should be neutral and cover reasons that "parking craters" are desirable (convenience, best ROI to the property owners, etc.) assuming such info can be properly sourced. MB 19:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and a search on "urban parking lot" turns up tens of thousands, yes. This isn't a "common name", and is only seen as such connected to a particular POV.  The article about the thing shouldn't be named for it.  The examples given in WP:NPOVNAME reflected dominant usage over decades or centuries, not a year and a half of echo-chambered blog-blather. Anmccaff (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * an "urban parking lot" is any parking lot in an urban area, including any 5-car lot at a convenience store. Anything about the mechanics of urban parking lots (which is what mostly I see when searching on the term), like landscaping, lighting, pollution from runoff, etc. should be covered in Parking Lot.  "Parking crater" is the common name for large areas of cities being demolished for parking. I see usage going back more than 5 years, so I think this term has sufficiently "gained traction" to be notable. MB 20:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Usage within the article and from ready hits on search engines shows that this simply is not true. The term is used for any divergence from an imaginary ideal city layout caused by visible parking areas.  Look at the examples that show in the "parking crater" contests; e.g. Boston's Fan Pier, where it reflects use for parking in an area that was never historically built up. It is used for a visual created by centering a illustration of parking acreage on a county map. It is used for identical volumes of parking acreage centered on street corners, as opposed to mid-block.  It is used for new build of transit parking in suburban areas. Anmccaff (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Parking lot.  At best this is a fork.    Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2017 (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.