Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiedemann 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiedemann Park

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

NN city park. Searching finds no independent coverage. Nothing remotely significant. WP:MILL. MB 13:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant park and nature center in Charleston. Merging to the article on the city would give it undue weight so best kept separate. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming "significance" without showing required coverage is not a policy-based rational to keep. MB 18:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The park has an interesting past, especially its use as one of the first free kindergartens offered in Charleston.--ProfReader (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up very little about this park, which is weird if it is "significant". Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. The Charleston Parks Conservancy might be notable, and this could be part of an article about that organization, but currently there is no article about it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been updated and new references added since nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources used in the article are all historical. I haven't been able to find many independent sources on it online, but they do exist, and I've looked but can't find the notability guidelines for parks. I don't have even a weak vote either direction, but I've spent some time looking, so figured I may as well note that. SportingFlyer talk 01:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ROTM playground, pretty much exist everywhere in the world. Here's a major hospital that plays an important role in the community may not be considered notable and is subject to deletion. A playground??? Acnetj (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could someone assess the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 21:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the new sources. Several are primary which verify some facts like it exists, has a playground, and it got a new fence in 2014. The rest are offline news articles which I see as routine coverage in a local newspaper that do not contribute to notability. As each of these articles (six local news articles spanning 75 years) are each used as refs for a single sentence covering more mundane things (the park opened in 1939, $6k spend on improvements in 1993, there were neighbor complaints about nighttime use, etc.) No in-depth coverage, just another WP:MILL city park. MB 22:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave a try at sourcing this one, lots of parks and many suffragettes can be sourced. I failed to find useful sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:18, 10 May 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.