Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Piedmont 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 Merge to Piedmont Park. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:41Z

Friends of Piedmont Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested prod. They may do good work in their city, but this is still a pretty non-notable organization. Denni ^talk 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nomination (and I live in Metro Atlanta) --Mhking 22:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on second thought, I'd like to rescind my vote; though I disagree with some of the group's past aims (notably trying to block a parking structure for park visitors), as a group, the organization has received plenty of attention not only in local Atlanta media, but from similar groups and media in support of and in relation to large urban parks across the nation (Griffith Park in L.A., Lincoln Park in Chicago, Jackson Square in New Orleans, and others). Based on that rationale, I'd have to change my vote to keep. --Mhking 23:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Conscious 21:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's rare that a local civic activism group becomes notable, since their notability (or notariety) tends to be very local. It's an admirable cause, but I'm going with WP:LOCAL here and pulling that one for my criterion. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm just not seeing the notability here beyond local impact. --Dhartung | Talk 08:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (after trimming) with Piedmont Park. The Piedmont Park article is not overly long, and this seems like a perfect merge.--Kubigula (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2006 (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.