Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedlow Skate 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.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Pedlow Skate Park

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find any significant, independent coverage. I notice that the notability tag has been there since early 2009. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - I'd say that a significantly sized public park or public leisure facility is normally notable and that this just about qualifies. I have fixed the dead link reference and I see that the new reference says that park is larger than previously stated so I have reflected that in the article. RS references are hard to come by but it did host the 2013 Southern California Summer Skateboarding Expo and I have added a reference for that. I don't think there is much scope to further expand the article but I think it is legitimate to have a short article about a subject that is just about notable enough to include. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 20:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk  14:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here's some signficant coverage: an engineering journal and an LA Times article . There isn't much but, added to the article's current references, I think this just meets WP:GNG. Daß Wölf (talk) 02:37, 2 August 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.