Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Low Playground

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Low Playground

Seth Low Playground (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)

The subject fails WP:GNG. The slight coverage on the topic is both local and WP:ROUTINE. The original author is reticent against a merge so deletion is the next step. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Bensonhurst or Seth Low. Best not to leave redlinks as clickbait for article re-creation. Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to this playground than its namesake, that's why I oppose having it merged with the entry on Seth Low. My entry on Seth Low Playground offers more on its history than the official Parks web page on it.. Queens Historian^(talk)

• Keep. Note, this appears to be a significant park, being 5 acres (2.0 ha) in Brooklyn where such spaces are not readily available (think: Ebbets Field). Note also that the park seems a bit misnamed, as merely a "playground", but indeed per the New York City website given in an external link in the article (which should be cited directly as a reference within the article, too), the entire park/playground and square are in fact named "Seth Low Playground". There are several sources already in the article, and it does not bother me that the coverage is mostly or all local sources (though using NYC source makes it a bit higher level than strictly local). Note NYC level sources are on the scale of a nation; this is not podunk Iowa. It is more significant as a geographical place than, say Crow Creek Water Ditch, to pick on a place having a name in Montana. :) It does not make sense to merge this to an article on the namesake person, as there is substantial information about the park in the article. Also it is too much material to merge into Bensonhurst. I like that the article has some relatively ancient history about the location, i.e. there being a pond then obliteration in 1896 by a dump. Editor Queens Historian is doing a good job with this. --doncram 00:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I expanded a reference and added one or two references to the article. Note that the Brooklyn Eagle "was the most popular afternoon paper (with the largest daily circulation in the nation) in the United States" at one time, presumably pretty much the time of the 1940s articles listed in the further reading section of the article. I get lots of hits in the Google news search field above, and I haven't tried other name variations and Google scholar and so on. I just think this is actually pretty signficant; that reasoning applied against local small playgrounds in small towns doesn't apply here. --doncram 00:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject isn't notable and the minimal media coverage is meager. There's no attempt to establish the park's notability or worthiness for an encyclopedia. Denarivs (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of interesting sourced factual information about a municipal park. A book search on "Seth Low Park" shows numerous Brooklyn-related books that mention the park - someone might want to know more about it. Not to mention, "Highlighted in his upcoming book Hidden Waters of New York City: A History and Guide to 101 Forgotten Lakes, Ponds, Creeks, and Streams in the Five Boroughs, reporter and Parks Department analyst Sergey Kadinsky describes how the bucolic space became the dumping ground of a nearby trash incinerator, and eventually, a city-owned paved lot".[1] - Station1 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I think the references give some support to GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Almost 100 years old, named after a former NYC mayor, WWI memorial, known history, coverage in the upcoming book. This seems more than a WP:MILL playground. MB 03:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. even relatively small urban parks are generally notable. This one clearly is for it meetsthe GNG. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 27 February 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.