Talk:U.S. develops parks above highways

How could this article possibly be pov?--Grace E. Dougle 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The single source clearly favours this idea.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

But on second thought the article looks pretty NPOV. A second source would be welcome because of {{single source}}, and it needs categories.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that this was a necessary requirement. There are no (suitable) additional sources. Not to this story and not to the other ones left in Urban Planning - Week In Summary - February 2, 2007. In this specific case newspapers had stories related to the individual projects, one project has it's own website. The stories are old (years) and the website had no suitable (quotable) updates. What to do with these stories then? This story has been sitting in the collaboration box for a while and nobody seems interested. The author who wrote this story and the others in Urban Planning - Week In Summary - February 2, 2007 doesn't seem to have come back. It is not likely that anything newsworthy will happen to give this story a second source. Maybe the slum-story in Urban planning could be kept, because there may be some story concerning slums that we could paste this into as background. Other than that I see no other possibility than to delete them. Thoughts?--Grace E. Dougle 16:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could talk to someone and tell us what they say. -Edbrown05 12:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)