Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanner 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Park

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Municipal park, fails WP:GNG. A search doesn't reveal any in-depth coverage of the park. Rusf10 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An in-depth search soon reveals plenty of sources. The nomination is false. Andrew D. (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to give some examples of these sources?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Search links are conveniently provided above. Andrew D. (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously??? Just because the subject is mentioned in an article does not mean it has significant coverage. Simply clicking on those links and declaring "there are search results, it must be notable" does not actually establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this park has numerous mentions, but nothing indepth, maybe appropriate for a redirect/merge to Copiague, New York? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing notable enough to merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep abundant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nom is reminded to please follow WP:BEFORE. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to throw out terms like "abundant coverage", it would be helpful to actually point to those sources. The only source in the article right now is [1], that's not independent. All I can find is several Newsday articles that just happen to mention the park, which I'd hardly consider abundant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions of a municipal park are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the same results as JPL: passing references to a place where routine things happen, but nothing substantial about the park. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable municipal park. Article does not cite secondary, independent RS, and significant coverage not found either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.