Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croton Gorge 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 Keep. Note that merger is an editorial decision that is not precluded (or endorsed) by a Keep decision at AfD. Newyorkbrad 03:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croton Gorge Park

Croton Gorge Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability. Previously proded but prod tag removed by Movie Eager (talk • contribs) because "That's stupid, it's part of the NYC watershed" 24fan24 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• What part does it NOT pass? It's insufficient to say "it doesn't pass notability". You have to say why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movie Eager (talk • contribs).

Note: This user was blocked as a sock puppet of this article's creator. --24fan24 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak delete as unreferenced and no viable assertions of notability. Could be a stub I guess, or a redirect to the Croton Reservoir or related hiking trail, but notability for the park on its own is absent. "It's notable because it's a park at the base of a damn of a reservoir that supplies water for a major city" is just too many degrees of separation from "notable" to "this article". DMacks 03:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Parks are not always notable, but large parks near major cities often are. Its relationship to the development of the NYC water system is important, there is interesting history involved. But this article is merely a stub and needs expansion and references. There should be many that will deal in considerable part with this. DGG 03:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't believe that the park's proximity to New York makes it notable. This article is lacking in sources and thus does not assert the notability of the subject. It is in need of multiple non-trival sources to verify its notability. It is also poorly written and does not convey an encyclopdic tone. It would need a substantial rewrite to be an acceptable article. --Cyrus Andiron 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep the links check out and there appears to be enough interesting history here to warrant a keep - but this needs a total rewrite as at present it reads like a babelfish translation from Japanese - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. It's the site of the Old Croton Dam, the first large masonry dam in the United States. The Old Croton Dam is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the Croton Aqueduct is a National Historic Landmark. The article needs a lot of cleanup, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the dam is the notable thing, then maybe the park should be a section in an article about the dam, not the other way around? DMacks 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That might make sense. I'll wait to hear what other people say in this AfD discussion, though, before proposing a page move or refocusing the article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Appears we already do have an article about the dam (or at least it's got the same structure in its picture; the history of construction on that page is kinda confusing). Still not sure the park itself is notable...we're still missing any ref that is non-self-published or that that asserts notability for it. DMacks 07:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The park is on the National Register of Historic Places and is notable for that alone. The article has four references, at least. Not sure why someone would nominate it for deletion except that the original wikipedist who wrote the stub does not seem to have English as a first language. This smacks of discrimination. -Enjoyclear 23:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: This user was blocked as a sock puppet of this article's creator. --24fan24 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• • The article didn't originally mention that the dam is on the National Register. I remembered (vaguely) the article about the Croton Aqueduct, so I did some research on this park and found that it contained a structure on the National Register. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Even if it does need a fair amount of work, there is still enough in the article to warrant its survival. Otebig 01:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Elkman. This park containing the historic Croton Dam alone makes it "notable." --Oakshade 04:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Oakshade. Being the location for the U.S. equivalent of the pyramids makes it notable. -t h b 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep change to merge and redirect (see comment from Shenme below), seems pretty notable. David D. (Talk) 04:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Now for the other option, Merge. This article seems 'light' and the other article New_Croton_Dam needs a rewrite ('president'?). Seems to me one article would serve better, as the dam is the setting and the park is simply part of the attraction. Shenme 19:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I support a merge. --24fan24 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The series of articles about this and the other landmarks need cleanup. It would be over reaction to delete this before the cleanup of the articles was complete. Vegaswikian 02:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, also, I'd recommend to include important links into this article. Environment friendly IBM World Headquarters in Ossinning, NY, sits right in the middle of the park. Scenic Taconic state road goes thru it - remains me of The Long and Winding Road by Paul McCartney. So what else is new? greg park avenue 18:23, 25 April 2007 (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.