Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Pointe 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. Originally closed by the nominator. Reclosing to fix formating (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

South Pointe Park

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

NN park, no sources. roux   17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep no offense, but AFDs like this are exactly why you should check for sources before making an AFD nomination. There are a lot, I've just added 2 and they're the tip of the iceberg. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really know much about Miami Beach but apparently this park was one of the key pieces in a successful plan to revitalize it in the 1980s. Seems like that should meet any reasonable concept of notability, and the sourcing is obviously there... hundreds of newspaper articles exist about this park. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing about saying 'no offense' (sic) is that it generally better to simply not say something offensive in the first place. I had prodded this, and someone else pointed out the lack of references. // roux   21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How does any of this explain why you didn't check for references? In your haste to condescendingly add 'sic' to your quote (despite the fact that what I wrote was perfectly valid American English) you appear to have ignored my argument. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really have no interest in indulging your apparent desire for an argument. You think the article should be kept, fine. You should have kept on topic rather than engaging in an attack. // roux   21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you basically have no good reason why you didn't check for references first, and no explanation of why my keep argument is invalid. Why not just withdraw the AFD? Your nomination rational has been debunked. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, people aren't allowed to make mistakes. I assume you're perfect and never do something quickly? That's what I thought. Despite your references, I don't see anything particularly notable about it. It's a park, some residents whined about having to put their dogs on leashes, blah blah blah. It's not like Hyde Park or Central Park or High Park, which are indeed all notable for the importance they play in their respective cities. // roux   21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be perfect to spend 10 seconds running a Google News Search... it's a basic thing you should do prior to AFD. If you can find a policy that says a park has to be as notable as Central Park to have an article, go for it... but WP:N just requires non-trivial coverage, I've demonstrated that exists. If you want subjective notability, like I said, it was a major part of the revitalization effort of a pretty high-profile city. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Not only has the nominator shown they failed to follow the deletion policy by failing to check for sources, but their "I don't see anything particularly notable about it. It's a park, some residents whined about having to put their dogs on leashes, blah blah blah." demonstrates they do not understand notability on Wikipedia. It is not importance, it is about coverage in independent, reliable sources, which this has four now and likely many more due to the size of the city. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I do understand it, but this page seems to be more about having a go at me than anything else, so please do me a favour and come up with some more baseless ad hominem crap for my collection. // roux   06:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you understand it, then time please search for sources first and then make your argument as follows: After a search I found only one source that qualified as a reliable source and it only contained trivial coverage of the park, the article was really about a homeless guy who died in the park. Saying something is "just a park" or "just a xxxxx" does not show an understanding of how notability works. And as to ad hominem, no, I attacked your actions and your argument, not attributes of you. An attack on you would be say "x is a big fat jerk" or "x doesn't know what they are doing because they are Christian/Jewish/Tall/Muslim/Black/White/Rich/Poor". And lastly, if you had followed my advice when I removed your prod then we would not all be here wasting time, nor would you feel you are being attacked. The deletion policy is clear (see the sixth bullet point) that sources need to be searched for, and the notability guideline footnote #10 also clearly tells editors that they need to be researching articles before asking that they be deleted. So you will have to excuse me if I don't get a little blunt with editors who end up wasting people's time with bad CSD/PROD/AFD nominations, as hopefully this will educated them and prevent similar occurrences in the future. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Time is only 'wasted' if you choose to waste it. Your choice. And your condescension is sickening. Do forgive me for acting in good faith. I know it's frowned on around here, but for some reason I keep trying. // roux   06:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be keeping this AFD open because you don't want to admit you rushed into it. Everyone makes mistakes... part of acting in good faith is being able to say, "Whoops, I screwed up." Spend more than 30 seconds on your next AFD nom, write more than 3.5 words for it... that's the good faith way to proceed here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong again there, chief. And that personal dig, after being told to stop? Tsk. // roux   15:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable with the added sources.  Them From  Space  06:15, 23 June 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.