Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Williamson Creek Greenbelt


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Williamson Creek Greenbelt

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

Non-notable park. Fails WP:N and WP:RS (not third party). Originally this started as a non-NPOV article to raise (negative) awareness for an event which took place April 25th. User has not come back to since original posting, and what's left has been improved, but is still not exactly NPOV and is definitely NN. Ghits for "Williamson Creek Greenbelt" = 144, and only a few additional for the park by its correct name of "Williamson Creek Central Greenbelt".  7  undefined    04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Here is another document: which documents, among other things, fairly detailed environment issues relating to this park.  Yes, the source is hosted on a local government site but so what?  Government sources, especially as relating to uncontroversial topics such as parks, tend to be highly reliable.  I think it is a stretch to exclude them as sources on the basis of not being independent, unless  there is good reason to believe there is some sort of conflict of interest with promoting a narrow agenda.  And if you're still concerned, there is good coverage in the Austin-American Statesman:  which I think is a very solid source.  Those articles discuss, among other things, a bit of the history of the land, expansion of the park from donated land, and trash/crime problems in the park.  Enough for a pretty comprehensive article.  And, if it counts for anything, I find this topic interesting and think it would enrich wikipedia!  Cazort (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient notability once Cazort finishes adding the sources he or she found. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm sure more work could be done based just on those sources but the meat of it is up on the page.  Cazort (talk) 16:22, 19 May 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.