Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itchycoo 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 per consensus but that move discussion should continue per later appearing, not fully addressed comments.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Itchycoo Park

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

Unsourced Computerjoe's talk 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and move I found sources confirming that Little Ilford Park existed. However, the article needs to be wikified and sourced. It also should be moved to Little Ilford Park, the formal name of the park. --Theunicyclegirl (talk, review me!) 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move Place does exist and was referred to as "Itchycoo Park" in the Small Faces song as claimed. However artcile should be listed under the park's formal name as noted above. A1octopus 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move, There should also be an article on the Small Faces song which is a staple of classic hits radio at least in Australia. Capitalistroadster 03:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and move Park does exist, article needs a clean-up - • The Giant Puffin • 10:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite without moving. It sounds counter-intuitive, but bear with me. Most of the incoming links are in fact about the song. Thus, a user clicking on a link reading "The Small Faces released the song 'Itchycoo Park'" would expect to see an article on the song, rather than an article on the park on which the song was based. Is the song notable? You betcha. Thus, it can be expanded and rewritten in the manner of any other article about a pop song. The information that there really is such a place can be added as a sub-section of the article on the song. If there's more information than can gainfully be put in a sub-section, then a separate article should be created. There is one incoming link which is about the geographical place, which might suggest that a separate article is in order, although that link could be piped to point to the specific section. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would contend that it would be preferable to move the article to the proper name of the place but leave behind a redirect on this title so that incoming links still go to the right place. A1octopus 14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's the thing, though. The "proper name" which people would expect if they followed most of the incoming links is the song, not the actual park. It's hard to judge relative notability of two different things, but it seems to me that the park is notable as a result of being named in the song, rather than the other way around. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:39, 10 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.