Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Spaces in Freiburg

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Spaces in Freiburg

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I'm sure Freiburg is lovely, but are its green spaces so notable that they deserve their own article? There are no references to attest to the notability of any of these places, let alone the notability of "Green Spaces in Freiburg" as a whole. ubiquity (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Freiburg is also known as "green city" and it‘s many green spaces are an important factor in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbstblüte (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One solitary reference provided to prove its notability. I see no reason why this could not be incorporated somehow into the Freiburg article. Calvinkarpenko (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 10:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) We have similar lists for many cities in the US and Canada and the UK; we even have many individual articles for parks and similar spaces,smalland large, some as small as a single acre. Since WP covers the world equally, geographic features in all countries should get the same density of coverage as long as thee ar people to write them. Writing a combination article as a start is a particularly good idea, provided for particularly in WP:N section 9 "Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages, " The situation has been provided for specifically b policy, and used for many thousands of combination pages in Wikipedia. For a large city, there will almost always be enough sources.

(2)And there are available sources here: the deWP article de:Grünanlagen in Freiburg has 26 references! They just need to be added. The criterion for deletion is unsourcable, not unsourced, and the references are right there already in WP, and just need to be added. When an article is translated from another WP, it's careless to nominate it for deletion without checking the original. Calvinkarpenko, ubiquity, please come back and look at them. And there is no deadline. Later, this can probably be split into combination articles,as we do for the US and UK. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DGG has entirely convinced me. Thincat (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pretentious title-case title, but aside from being a perfectly valid subarticle where the topic can be given a better encyclopedic treatment, it also serves a navigational purpose. Esquivalience ^t 03:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the definition of a travel guide given on the What Wikipedia is not page, the article "Green spaces in Freiburg" clearly does not meet these criteria: It does not mention telephone numbers, street addresses or other tips which would typically be found in a travel guide. Zaffir0X (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG's sound reasoning.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2016 (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.