Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairbank Memorial 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 of the nomination was keep. Oh, nice article btw. ;) - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairbank Memorial Park

Non-notable park, even among Toronto parks. --Christopher Thomas 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is already listed at List of Toronto parks, and the article adds little additional information. This park isn't notable, and there are several dozen others just like it in the city. The parks that _are_ notable in Toronto are Downsview Park, High Park, the Toronto Islands, and maybe Ashbridge's Bay Park. --Christopher Thomas 20:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-notability is not necessarily a factor when deciding whether or not to keep an article. Moreover, in his above comment, Christopher Thomas severely misrepresents the state parks in Toronto, as well as their converage on Wikipedia. Not only are there many parks deserving of articles, there's a whole category that includes a substantial portion of them. While the article is rather paltry at the moment, it does provide useful information, and it is frequently the case that great articles start out small. Another consideration is that this appears to be the first article Daloonik has created. While this alone can't be a reason not to delete, it can be a reason to err on the side of keep, as destroying the work of a contributor who took the initiative to learn enough about Wikipedia to create an article, including apparently going out to take pictures specifically for the article, is only likely to discourage a user who has shown he can make useful edits from continuing to participate on Wikipedia. Stanfordandson 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment that is not quite true, this user was also the creator of the ever-so-interesting page Fairbank Memorial Community Recreation Centre. He was also blocked recently. Pascal.Tesson 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory. While a list of all parks in Toronto can be argued to be in scope, articles about every patch of land with grass and trees on it aren't. I live in Toronto, and am extremely familiar both with its parks in general, and with Fairbank Memorial Park (which I visit regularly). My comments stand. --Christopher Thomas 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge and redirect to List of Toronto parks. Also delete the page just mentionned. Pascal.Tesson 23:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my opinion to keep given new edits. Pascal.Tesson 01:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If Wikipedia has individual articles on metro stations all over the world, why not parks? --Rbraunwa 02:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the debate here is not about metro stations but on this article. How are "why not?" arguments going to enlighten the discussion? Pascal.Tesson 02:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't be rude. The OP has a point. If one thing, why not another? Ey is clearly showing that the bar for inclusion is entirely arbitrary. Why not address his point rather than make a rude reply? Grace Note 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The logical way to address his argument is to slap "merge to list of (city) subway stations" on all but the most notable of the station stubs. Grand Central Station would certainly qualify. Union Station (Toronto) _might_ qualify, as it's a historic building and a well-known landmark. Donlands (TTC), on the other hand, serves no useful purpose as a separate article. --Christopher Thomas 05:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to list of Toronto parks for now. That list could be organised as a table, say, with pictures of the parks and information about each of them. Of course, when there is enough information it can be split out again into its own article, but I think it makes much more sense in a list at the moment. --bainer (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not a criterion for deletion. Please read policy before nominating articles you don't like. Grace Note 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If the article had any significant content, you might have a point. If it weren't for WP:NOT, you might also have a point. As it stands, the stub serves no purpose that the list of Toronto parks doesn't already serve, and given the non-notability of the park, I have grave doubts about it _ever_ having content that justifies a separate article. --Christopher Thomas 05:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that Grace Note provides no actual reason why the article should be kept, just an ad hominem attack on reasons why the article should be deleted. Proto///type 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's something particularly notable about the park apart from its presence. BigHaz 06:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It's a park in Toronto. There is nothing encyclopaedic about that; all the necessary exposition possible on an unnotable park is within the List of Toronto parks. The park has no special features or unique aspects that make it anything more than a patch of grass and trees. Quite frankly, if it wasn't already going through AFD, I'd speedy delete the article as containing no significant content. The article states "Fairbank Memorial Park is a park in Toronto. There's a street to the west, and it has a community centre". That's not even a substub. Proto///type 09:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Public parks are notable public resources, and this is a perfectly reasonable stub. List of Toronto parks does not include any information about any of the parks in question apart from their names, so a Merge to that target doesn't seem like a viable option. If it's merged anywhere (which I'd still discourage), it should be to the neighborhood that contains the park. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't get it. How is a 1 block park a "notable public resource"? Look at a Google earth or something and you'll see what this is: a park with a baseball field and a basketball court. Any city the size of Toronto has about 100 of these. So even by a conservative estimate there are hundreds of thousands of parks like this all over the world. I don't see how any future editor will be motivated to expand this. Half of the edit history is due to racist vandalism created by user:Daloonik and user:Stanfordandson (who incidently voted above to keep the page). Why keep open an article that's a sandbox for vandals? Pascal.Tesson 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment While I don't currently have time to respond to everything I'd like to respond to here, I'd like to point out that at no time did I ever make a racist or vandalistic edit to that article. I'll deal with this more later, but before I do, I suggest you bone up on Wikipedia's no personal attack policy and Wikipedia's civility policy. I take accusations of racism very seriously. Stanfordandson 17:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Vandalism isn't a reason for deletion. If it were, we wouldn't have an article on a lot of topics worthy of coverage, including George W. Bush. If vandalism is a problem, request semi-protection for the article. As to your other point, neither you nor I have any idea as to which articles hypothetical future editors will want to expand. We have some very nice articles on small urban parks, such as Ralph Bunche Park (to cite one example), so it's certainly not out of the question that some editor will improve this one. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment note that I am not saying that the article should be deleted because of vandalism. All I am saying is that an article about an un-notable small park (unlike Ralph Bunche Park) is a door left open for trolling. Keeping the article means having admins patrolling it to remove inappropriate edits and then facing accusations of stalking (again, pls take a look at the edit history). There is no benefit for Wikipedia to keep this article. Pascal.Tesson 18:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I've already looked at the edit history, thanks, and my opinion is unchanged. If someone wants to troll or vandalize, they're going to find a place to do it, whether it's this article or somewhere else. Deleting the article would only deny useful information to legitimate users. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You keep _saying_ that, but your argument about "denying useful information" breaks down for articles, like this one, that contain _no_ useful information. What purpose does this article, right now, serve? --Christopher Thomas 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, even though it's a stub, the article still indicates the location of the park within Toronto and the existence of a community center within the park. It also provides two photographs of the park, indicating that the north end is mostly level ground, with a paved area containing children's playground equipment. That is useful information for someone interested in the subject, and it's information that wouldn't be available from a plain entry on a list. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I went ahead and expanded it a little. If you thought it was non-notable before, you may want to re-consider that opinion... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Major scandal that involved high-ranking municipal politicians accepting bribes to give the park to developers? A non-notable piece of land with grass and trees indeed! Thanks for the edits, Hb,ws! Stanfordandson 23:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The list of Toronto parks, though it may seem large, is in fact incomplete. It would make that article even more cumbersome to merge this current article with that one. I would also like to draw people's attention to what wikipedia really is. This is a place for information to be shared, and although most of you may have never visited this park in person, there might be somebody who would want pictures of this park, and would like to find them somewhere on the internet; this is the place for that. Trivialising an urban park, small as it may be, should not be done on wikipedia. In time, I would like to see an article with photographs of every urban park in Toronto, and the list of Toronto parks containing links to each of those parks. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Hit bull, win steak for expanding the article. Vivelequebeclibre 23:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Thanks to user Hit bull, this is now notable, reliably sourced and a keeper IMO. Crum375 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, guys. Y'all are makin' me blush. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although I have some doubts about having an article for every city park in the world (or Toronto) I think this one passes with the changes by Hit Bull.--Nick Y. 23:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. — getcrunk what?! 23:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At least as notable as some schools, particularly in the present form. Powers 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The scandal was fairly significant at the time. CJCurrie 01:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per HBWS's edits. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - appears to be somewhat notable, would prefer an expansion -- Tawker 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge - It's sourced, and there's picture. Nothing wrong with this article existing. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2006 (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.