Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green parking lot

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green parking lot

Green parking lot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This really belongs in the main parking lot article, at least at each's current size. Merger or deletion would both be workable. Anmccaff (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Parking lot. Source searches in GBooks, GScholar and Gnews are providing some coverage, but there may not be enough available to qualify a standalone article. The merge target article has no mention, so merging would improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (struck my !vote above) – Available sources demonstrate notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A "Green+parking+lot" Google Books search shows a lot of coverage of this topic in many books, and I believe that it is a discrete topic sufficiently different from the broad topic of "parking lot" that it deserves its own article, instead of being buried deep in another article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge to Parking lot. I only found one book specifically mentioning "Green parking lot" when doing the same google books search as Cullen328. Based on that and other book searches I agree with Northamerica1000 that there isn't enough there to have a stand-alone article. While other green technologies or adaptations of previous articles have been accepted like Green vehicle, Green building and Natural building, I believe it's simply WP:TOOSOON for this one. As the parking lot article does have a section on alternative paving materials I don't see why this section couldn't simply be expanded to list alternatives to pavement altogether or have additional section added mentioning ways in which some places are trying to make parking lots more "green". In the future if a new article is warranted a split can occur. In addition, I noted that the source cited for the Environmental Protection Agency refers to "Green parking lot" in the title, however even the table of contents lists the word "green" is in quotes before "parking lot". - Vanstrat (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon looking again my searches were mistyped and Cullen328 was correct, there is more coverage than I initially found (not only in Google books but news searches in library databases came up with quite a bit). The article just needs work and links can be added from Parking lot. While I thought that the results would tend to show "a parking lot that is the colour green" as being the most recognised for the phrase "Green parking lot", that was not the case. - Vanstrat (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and what sort of coverage did you see that suggested this should be separated from "Parking lot?" Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same google books search that I believe Cullen328 did, and I looked through several of the entries to see the level of detail. One of the library news searches can be seen here. I think there are enough sources and enough detail in them. - Vanstrat (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also more than enough sources for "concrete parking lot", "Gravel parking lot", "asphalt parking lot", "temporary parking lot", "soil-cement parking lot,' &cet, &cet, ad. naus. Why should this be a separate article any more than those? Anmccaff (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all routine and predictable variations of standard parking lots, Anmccaff. A parking lot that, for example, generates solar power, is a sufficiently discrete topic to support its own article.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single technique mentioned in the Wiki article is, in fact, a routine and predictable variations of standard techniques, most of which have been used, often for environmental reasons -although perhaps not by that name - for over a century. Again, what justifies a separate article, especially considering what this one looked like until recently? Anmccaff (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason Brick building isn't a wikipedia article but Green building is. It's not always about the number of sources, it's about the content. As I said above: "I looked through several of the entries to see the level of detail". And as WP:N states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". You can see the difference between the books that come back on a book search for "Gravel parking lot" and "Green parking lot". (And it's not about the current article. It needs work.) - Vanstrat (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet, Frame building? The essential difference I see is that "green parking lots" are not a oddity, as "green building" still is, and all of the information relevant to "Green parking lots" should be...and indeed is in the main article, even if it could use some expansion there. This is just a POV fork, and, over most of its life, a coatrack. Anmccaff (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet Green roof is also an article, an arguably good one at that. Blue roof even has it's own. With work this article can get better based on the sources available, and WP:N isn't a question anymore in my mind from what's out there. - Vanstrat (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and when it does become a good article, we will have two nearly identical articles, covering almost exactly the same subjects; i.e., at least a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and likely a WP:POV Fork. This is good how, exactly? Anmccaff (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definitions given for those forks I don't see how they apply to this distinct subject. - Vanstrat (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2017 (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.