- 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. John254 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Back garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No notability. I appreciate that WP has articles on other type of gardens such as 'rose garden' and 'vegetable garden', but these are defined areas with defined content. This article seems to be non-encyclopedic, with much of the information speculative (such as size). Perhaps suitable for transfer to Wiktionary ? CultureDrone (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article author has entered a somewhat copious rationale for keeping the article on the articles talk page. I'll admit I should probably have "a deeper and more profound understanding of what an encyclopedia is, and s/he at the moment does not understand the encyclopedia-ising process." - which is why I have submitted this for peer review. CultureDrone (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely unencyclopedic. I can't see this as a viable article... This, for me, is one of the few articles that would fall into the catagory of "referenced but still original research".--Pmedema (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect I change my mind. The article should be merged into Garden and a redirect pointing to it.--Pmedema (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the following put on my talk page:
"Why is "back garden" unencyclopedic, whatever that means. Your picture depicts you against a snowfield. If I look up that in wikipedia is rhere such an entry. You bet there is." Chasnor15 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
my answer - No... Im on a FROZEN LAKE. No there isn't an article called Frozen Lake. I still say, how can you make the general term "Back Garden" notable (not to exclude all general terms). I might as well make an article called "Desk sizes". There's lots of WP:N there and lots of WP:RS trust me.... you will get a million ghits... Lets remember everyone... this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Back Garden is un-encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see List of desk forms and types for more sizes and shapes of desk than you can imagine. Gardens seem comparatively neglected. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh...so Back Garden should then be part of List of gardens then. Great! Make it so number one!--Pmedema (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see List of desk forms and types for more sizes and shapes of desk than you can imagine. Gardens seem comparatively neglected. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Back gardens are very notable, existing in their millions and being covered by many hundreds of sources. They differ from other gardens in their seclusion. They are given special treatment by the sources and so we may do likewise. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden. I'd never heard this term, but it does appear to be fairly widely used and notability via sources doesn't appear to be a concern. Hobit (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is less a type of garden than a manifestation of urban architecture. There are only a few US cities with anything similar, but it's ubiquitous in urban Britain. --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that building plots are more rectangular in Britain than in the USA, where they may be more square-shaped. Some of the sources do talk about the USA too though so it may be regional. Perhaps the difference arises because the equivalent space in the USA is usually occupied by a swimming pool rather than a garden. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Colonel Warden - as has been shown on many other WP articles, a large number of Google hits isn't by itself proof of notability as defined by WP:N. I modified the query you used above on Google Books to look for "Green Elephant" - and I got 618 hits - so I expect to see a Wikipedia article on Green Elephants any time now :-) Ok - only joking - but I hope you see my point :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is The Green Eyed Elephant close enough? There is also a play by the name "Green Elephant" which seems to have enough reviews to make it notable. Maybe I'll make that page :-) Hobit (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This seems like an article with potential- I can't imagine there isn't a great deal of landscaping and architecture information specific; maybe even political ramifications, land value impact, etc. Per the comments about the U.S. above, I'd also propose making back yard a redirect to it if it's kept. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect of back yard would be a mistake - the two are distinct (not all back yards are gardens). Someone looking for back yard may well not be looking for information about gardens. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 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.