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 merged into Peekskill, New York. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Depew Park

Depew Park (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No sources or apparent notability. ɱ (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• I've nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation of [1]. Seattle ( talk) 00:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC) The site was created in June 2009, I'm sure they copied us. Seattle ( talk) 00:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

I believe it seeing as the site has information on minor Peekskill locales that WP doesn't have, although I don't see where it says June 2009. Also, it should still be removed for my initially stated reasons.-- ɱ (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources, dating back over nearly a century. [2], [3], [4]. Pburka ( talk) 14:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

These sources don't say much that makes the park notable. The first source says nothing about it except that it's in the "center of the village" (which isn't concrete fact and doesn't even appear true); the second source says nothing except a boy hanged himself there in 1984, which isn't very notable and appears to be largely insignificant. The third source only details that Depew gave the city its park and his supporters made a monument for him there. All of that information can and should be placed in the Peekskill article. There's not enough for Depew Park to warrant its own article.-- ɱ (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

If you're proposing a merge, I wouldn't object to that. Pburka ( talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, that sounds like a good plan.-- ɱ (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC) reply

• Good solution. I already merged the information to the Peekskill article so this just needs to be redirected. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:25, 20 June 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.