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 merge to Westlake, Ohio. Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I think it is a clear example of self-promotion and/or advertising. Thoughts? Johnson8776 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — No independant sources, blatant advertising. Best to delete this one, I think. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sticking to my guns on this, I still find the sources unsatisfactory and very much agree with the points laid out by the nominator below. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect – to Westlake, OH under Points of Interest. There is information out there for the community, as shown here [1]. However, not enough to warrant its own article at this time. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect Per above, merge any useful content to the Westlake article, then redirect there. There's obviously many RSs that give information on the article; as such, I would not contest recreation of the article if it didn't read as an advert. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notwithstanding the sources added, I still think that it doesnt qualify for its own article. Sources are not reliable (in the sense that they are not independent [WP:RS]] authored by 1) the company that owns Crocker Park and 2) the Crocker Park official site. In my opinion it does not satsify WP:CORP and is at odds with WP:NOTADVERTISING. I think that part of the article may be merged as a point of interest (as argued above), but on the whole it should not be redirected and be deleted. Johnson8776 (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2008 (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.