Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood Central 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. Sandstein 22:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Central Park

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

Per WP:N. Park is still in development and fundraising stages - nothing seems particularly notable about either stage, leading me to think this is WP:TOOSOON for the park to have its own page. Comatmebro (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The park is still in the concept stage. For the park to be notable, this article would need to address controversies about whether to create the park. As per above, WP:TOOSOON, unless article can focus on any controversies. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (warning: little rant coming:)), "the park is still in development and fundraising stages", "the park is still in the concept stage", so?, the same can be said about SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure, Mars Base Camp, Deep Space Transport, and others as they are in the "development", "fundraising" and/or "concept" stages, but we don't want to delete them, "yes coola but they have heaps of sources"....oh!:) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well here are "heaps of sources" (some may be deemed unsuitable?) about the park and cap parks:

Engineering News-Record California - "Los Angeles Begins EIR on Visionary Hollywood Central Park Project", Gizmodo - "Five Cities Turning Ugly Overpasses Into Vibrant Parks", Urban Land - "Cap Parks", Curbed Los Angeles - "Plan to cap the 101 freeway in Downtown LA with a park moves forward", Los Angeles Times - "Freeway cap parks can be L.A.'s High Line" (op. ed.), Unrbanize.LA - "Downtown Freeway Cap Park Reemerges", "Exploring Glendale's Freeway Cap Park", Next City - "Seattle Architect Says the Time Is Right for This Highway-Capping Park Design", The Dirt - "In Los Angeles, Freeway Cap Park Plans Move Forward", Time Out Las Angeles - "A look at the proposed plans for Glendale's freeway cap park", Archinect - "More details on Glendale's "freeway cap park" emerge", btw where is the article: Cap park (any article creators out there are more than welcome to use any of the above sources:))? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. There are now many, including Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway. Hope someone writes it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think a "cap park" is the same thing as a "Linear park". I don't see any difference between the two, and have created the redirect, but if someone thinks they are different, they can always develop an article using the excellent sources above.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I changed the category on the page to Category:Proposed parks in the United States. Sourcing is sufficient to keep this article. If the project gets cancelled, we update the text and create a category similar to Category:Failed museum proposals in the United States and move it there, as was done, for example, with The Boston Museum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep per extensive coverage in numerous sources as discussed above. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the numerous sources provided by Coolabahapple. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 9 December 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.