Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude chilling 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 no consensus. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude chilling park

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

Contested PROD. One new editor already tried to delete it (process incorrectly) and was blocked for it. Now the blocking admin has removed the prod. Perhaps they'd care to justify the global encyclopedic significance of a local artist getting their joke sign left in place and an offhand Twitter post being the canon source behind all of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have speedied this myself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is dubious; I'd prefer to see this mentioned in an article on Guelph Park, if it has sufficient sources to be notable itself. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have speedied it? By what criteria? It has a good cross section of WP:RS and meets WP:GNG. A Google news search easily reveals multiple coverage -- dating as far back as September of last year -- in the city's largest daily, the public broadcaster CBC and private network Global. The nominator's rationale seems to ignore that entirely and the comment above from an admin that he would have unilaterally speedied it is disconcerting, to say the least.Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources (well, the originals, a lot are just re-hashes) meet RS, but are they substantial enough? This isn't even a park, it's a prank sign in one corner. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This started out as a prank sign, then after public debate, was officially retained by the Vancouver Parks Board as a piece of public art. Even if it remained at the level of a prank, if it has the refs it's a bona fide member Category:Practical jokes and Category:Individual signs. But it did not end there, as substantial coverage verifies. We have a nomination statement that misrepresents the state of the article, with a claim that "an offhand Twitter" is "the canon source behind all of this" -- a quip that, weighed against the considerable WP:RS out there -- all the reporting that has been done by major news organs -- is flatly untrue. And of an admin who's threatened to delete it because... ? I'm concerned that what we have here is a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT argument taking hold. If it's notable according to reliable sources, editors' personal views about intrinsic merits of pranks, or public art pieces that start as pranks, or articles about individual signs, or what topics they personally prefer to see in Wikipedia are of no consequence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as silly as this is, it seems to have garnered substantial coverage in reputable sources. Meets WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 10 March 2014 (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.