Talk:North Saskatchewan River valley parks system

Canada: Alberta / Geography Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.

Oldman River valley parks system[edit]

I'm glad you found the Oldman River valley parks system article useful for this one. ;-) --Kmsiever (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

Proposing to merge Terwillegar Park into this article; the former lacks notability and secondary source coverage, and can easily be summarized in a sentence or two here. 162 etc. (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] It contains many parks, all of which are part of North Saskatchewan River valley parks system. Ansony89 (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article, a topic must have demonstrated notability as shown in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. 162 etc. (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park (Edmonton), Forest Heights Park, Gallagher Park (Edmonton), and Gold Bar Park, which had also previously been blanked and merged, also fail to meet WP:N. 162 etc. (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support the overall proposal to merge on notability grounds. Though considering there may be several other (potential) merged articles out there, I feel the need to suggest List of parks in Edmonton as an alternate redirect target for the merge. Leventio (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Calgary's park system has individual parks having individual pages. If they are managed separately by the city, and known locally by different names then they deserve separate pages. Also the notion that any of these park can be summarized with due justice in a couple sentences undermines the unique aspects of each of these parks. This merge would be a net loss for valuable information on individual parks different activities, descriptions, ecology, and histories on Wikipedia in favour of a page that would end up only giving a surface level description of Edmonton's entire park system. If this was for a small neighbourhood dog park I would understand but each one of these parks is visited by hundreds of people every year and that itself should warrant the existence of a page. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I'll reiterate that "To have an article, a topic must have demonstrated notability as shown in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N."

If such sources can be cited, please be bold and add them to the article. If there are no sources, then the article should be merged. 162 etc. (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal (Forest Heights Park)[edit]

The article Forest Heights Park was tagged by @162 etc.: on the 19th of December for potential merger to this article. A previous redirection (effective merger) by 162_etc. on the basis of lack of notability was reverted by @Ansony89: on the 19th of December without explanation. I personally support the merger as the article is not cited but for a feature and has not had notability established. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- Same reasoning as explained in my comment on the other proposed merge. Qwexcxewq (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]