Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Juba Park
Parks can certainly be notable if they're |reliably sourced well enough to clear , but are not automatically deemed "inherently" notable just because they exist — but two of the five footnotes here are |primary source content from the city's own self-published website, which are not notability-supporting sources; one is just a brief profile on the self-published website of the Manitoba Historical Society, calling it a historic site but failing to verify that it has any formal legal ''designation'' as such; one glancingly mentions the park's existence in a case study on the architectural redevelopment of a large neighbourhood, but is not ''about'' the park; and the only one that is about the park in any non-trivial way is not ''enough'' to hand it an instant GNG pass all by itself if it's the ''only'' substantive reliable source in play. City parks need more than just being technically verifiable as existing
— User:Bearcat, 18:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)