Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverside Park (Kamloops)


 * 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. Keep rationales are the consensus. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 12:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Riverside Park (Kamloops)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article about a random city park created so it could be linked to Tara Teng. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion this park is notable due to its local significance, and because it has sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I see that Tripadvisor has it ranked as the #1 thing to do in Kamloops. I'd say it's a major urban park for that city, and meets WP:GEOLAND. It is adequately referenced. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Minor park in a small town. Fails notability. Just more of Neelix's promo activity. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike Douglas Park (Langley), this one does seem to be considerably better sourced — even stretching into published books and extralocal media. While it's true that not all municipal parks get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because they exist, they are allowed if you can make and source a substantive claim of notability — and with nine valid citations to a variety of sources, this one does have a valid WP:GNG claim to being at least somewhat more notable than the norm. As problematic as Neelix's Tara Teng obsession could be, not everything he did was always without justification — each situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits, rather than being automatically shitcanned just because Neelix. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 1 December 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.