Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowden Grove 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 keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden Grove Park

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

Local park with no wp:gng claim to notabiility. John from Idegon (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some coverage there; more than I expected to find. There's obviously plenty of local coverage like this. The Chamber of Commerce tells us, "Snowden Grove Park is the nation’s largest youth baseball complex... [and] ...hosts the Dizzy Dean Baseball World Series, the USSSA Fall Nationals and the NABF World Classic. Snowden was named USSSA Complex of the Year for 2008" (the first claim is confirmed here). I don't think it's quite accurate to describe it as simply a "local park" and there's certainly a claim to notability. Whether it's enough is the question. I'm maybe at weak keep. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Stalwart111: Those all appear to be WP:ROUTINE mentions for events held at the park, not about the history and significance of the park itself. Query whether the local newspaper and chamber of commerce constitute independent sources, or are engaged in promotion? There are no specific notability guidelines for buildings, parks and other landmarks, and therefore they must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG within significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. I'm not seeing it here, but I have not yet finished my Google search. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that all seems pretty spot-on and John was right to bring it here, I think. I suppose I have concerns about deleting an article for the biggest youth baseball facility in a country where baseball is the "national pass-time". I'm not a baseball person, nor am I American but such a facility in my country (Australia) for one of our national sports (AFL, NRL or Football) would likely be notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 13:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a significant venue, for both baseball and concerts, in the Memphis-Mid-South region. I'm finding sources that deal specifically with the venue (not just passing references) in reliable, mainstream media sources. Such sources include: (1) this and (2) to a lesser extent, this from My Fox Memphis, (3) this, (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from The Commercial Appeal, (8) this from The Memphis Daily News discussing it as one of the leading Memphis tourist attractions, and (9) this and (10) this from Local Memphis. The in-depth coverage from the city's largest daily newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, is particularly persuasive IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet GNG per Cbl62'a sources. Rlendog (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG coverage listed, and venues are a part of the gazetteer. Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 16 August 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.