Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Community gardens in Nebraska. Before merging, applying a bit of WP:TROUT wouldn't be a bad idea either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I merged this newly-created list into Community gardens in Nebraska, but it has been recreated by its creator as a stand-alone article. There is insufficient content to justify two articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Change to List - Seems to me that this article might survive as something like List of community gardens in Portland, Oregon. Seems so trivial though, and I'm having trouble seeing the references. Deletion wouldn't be bad either. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well it was just started. The Portland list has been referenced as a model already, at Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska. Notability of a list has already been established by discussion and references provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden. Give it some time here. --doncram 22:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Portland list isn't a good example of how this should progress: two years after it was started, one entry is sourced to Facebook, another to a dead link on a site probably associated with the garden, and the rest to one source, a directory, and there's no lead section or any prose outside of the list entries. Peter James (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If anything, that AfD decided that the list should be at Community gardens in Nebraska. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Pigsonthewing, in fact, that is NOT what was "decided" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden. You can still clearly see that there are two comments there for Merge; one for Nebraska, and the second one for Omaha, which also highlighted that the list does not contain a single garden in Nebraska that isn't in Omaha. And, the second one is actually from the same User: Ammodramus who, one hour after suggesting the Nebraska list, changed their position to support the Omaha list. You seem to have a habit of just saying that things happen or are decided in these discussions that back up what your opinion, rather than what actually occurs. There was no poll that tabulated all the votes in that discussion. That AfD didn't "decide" anything so clearly as you try to make it sound. If you think that the List for Nebraska should superseded the List for Omaha, please, in one of these discussions somewhere, give a reason. And preferably, make edits to the appropriate article with references. ScottHW (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The closing admin's statement, in full was: "The result was merge to Community gardens in Nebraska". Note that it was not "The result was merge to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska". Your allegation of "just saying that things happen or are decided in these discussions that back up what your opinion, rather than what actually occurs" is a baseless and unacceptable slur, which you should retract. As I've said to you elsewhere (and as people can decide here, if they wish), feel free to propose moving Community gardens in Nebraska to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska. There is still no need for two articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I won't be retracting what I said. I will acknowledge that User:Number_57 did cite that as the when they decided to close the AfD. This was a mistake of oversight, probably because the Admin was not actually involved in the discussion, read through quickly, and then acted. I will reiterate that if you spend 30 seconds and read the AfD, you will see two comments tagged as supporting Merge. They were both from User: Ammodramus. The first suggested merging to a Nebraska list, and then, 3 hrs later, based on the discussion including a lengthy list of provided references, User: Ammodramus voiced support for merging to an Omaha list. It seems that Admin User:Number_57 missed this when they acted to close the AfD.ScottHW (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • User:ScottHW, you've completely misstated my position, and I'll urge you to go back and re-read the AfD. My initial !vote was for deletion of the Dundee Community Gardens article, on grounds of non-notability. Later in the course of the discussion, User:Candleabracadabra suggested that the DCG article be merged to Community gardens in Nebraska, which s/he'd just created. I responded to this suggestion by questioning the notability of "CG in N", based on the paucity of sources in the article. Candle responded by coming up with an expanded set of sources, all of them related to CGs in Omaha. At this point, I changed my !vote to support the merge, with the suggestion that Candle's target article be moved to "Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska", which at the time was a redlink—the list article of that name was created about five hours after my !vote. At no point did I ever support the merge of the DCG article with any list article. Ammodramus (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • To Ammodramus: Do you just mean that you did not support a "list-article". I think that is a technicality. It is natural for any "Community gardening in AREA" type of article to include a list, whether it does yet or not, and it is fine for a list-article to have title not including the word "List". The nation-level article includes a section "By state" which is a list of states. I think that any Nebraska state-level article is going to have a list-section. So I think you might be making a distinction, that you technically did not support merger to any list-article, when ScottHW was correctly citing you as supporting merger to the Omaha article which he sees as a list-article. I haven't thoroughly checked, but perhaps ScottHW's quote that you object to was a slight misquote, as he was not seeing a distinction between an Omaha article vs. an Omaha list-article. Hopefully this was just a misunderstanding on that fine point, as I don't believe ScottHW was deliberately trying to misconstrue anything. --doncram 17:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I described in detail on the Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska page, merging a list of Omaha gardens into a Nebraska gardens entirely misses the point of Community gardening. Omaha has a vibrant group of community gardens which are interrelated and work together e.g. Tour de Gardens bike tour. A list of other gardens hundreds of miles away doesn't contribute to encyclopedic knowledge in any way, and obscures the significance of a community in community gardening. In response to User:Pigsonthewing's comment "insufficient content to justify two articles", the article that should be kept is the one that is actively being developed by a number of editors, the article about community gardening in Omaha. At no time has any editing whatsoever been done to a list of garden across the entire state, other than the creation of the page in response to the AfD discussion of the now-defunct Dundee Community Garden article. - - - ScottHW (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC) - - -[reply]
    • Those editors can just as easily work at Community gardens in Nebraska. The community that purportedly exists in Omaha is of no consequence here; it's not Wikipedia's job to foster or promote that; and we can describe it just as well in the more widely-focussed article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Pigsonthewing By your logic that a "more widely-focused article" is the best decision, why not have a List of Community gardens in the United States of America, or a List of Community gardens on Earth for that matter. I, along with several other editors, have consistently stated that we will write a coherent article about community gardens in Omaha, about the community of community gardens in Omaha. You have still, in any of these discussions, not provided any reason whatsoever that a broader article would have any benefits over a more focused article. ScottHW (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you haven't written such an article, have you? We're discussing what has been written, not what might be. My argument is that we don't need two articles, and I have made a case for that. I'm still waiting for the citations I requested from you earlier, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I definitely have started writing that article. I think you need more practice using your computer machine... Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska was started by me, then edited by User:Download and User:Doncram, and then immediately Merged... by YOU! With no discussion. That rapidly descended into an Edit War, for which you were blocked. I'm surprised you don't remember that happening. It was yesterday, and you had to request an unblock. ScottHW (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Community gardens in Nebraska. Article is nothing but a chart. Doesn't matter how many people care deeply about it, WP:GNG is the guideline here. Community gardening is great and all that but seriously? Two lists? Naah. Montanabw(talk) 20:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and Call for immediate administrative closure. There's no need for AFD attention. A proposal to merge was previously opened, and is ongoing, at Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska#Merger proposal. It was proposed by User:Gilliam in this notice calling for discussion and linking to where the discussion should happen. The current AFD nominator since removed the notice, and has since also commented at the discussion. This was all discussed also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pigsonthewing reported by Doncram (Result: Both blocked for 48 hours). The current AFD nominator was participating in the 3RR discussion at 18:06, and opened this AFD at 18:54, before being blocked. He was unblocked on basis that he "promised not to engage in further disruption," but had opened this AFD already. This AFD should just be closed.
    Seriously, there is no need for far-away editors to apply attention here, it is just extending dramah. Let the editor(s) developing content on community gardens do what they want to do, and they will make sensible decision to merge in due time, if there is not sufficiently different material for two lists. If anyone wants to butt in, do contribute to the article, and/or comment at the ongoing merger proposal, a less confrontational medium than AFD. Assume good faith and some competence on the part of the productive editor(s). --doncram 22:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you were the other blocked editor. If you wish to assert that this AfD is disruptive, take the matter to ANI; otherwise you should strike your false allegations here. And do explain the significance and meaning of "far-away editors". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • "False allegations"? And you surmise something untoward from my use of "faraway" term? Not faraway = editor ScottHW, who I perceive to be local, and Ammodramus who takes pics in Nebraska and offers at ScottHW't talk along those lines, and anyone else with balance of relevant local knowledge, interest, access to news sources that faraway editors don't have as easily. Faraway = everyone else, including me. Let's not personally battle; I don't expect to comment more here. --doncram 00:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, Doncram, "false allegations", because you clearly can't substantiate them. And from your further comments, about "far-away editors" I now surmise that you believe that this matter only "needs" to be discussed by those who are geographically local to its subject. Wikipedia has a number of policies about that, not east WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • User:doncram is correct, I do live in Omaha. I have been to the community gardens I write about, many times. And I have used the "primary daily newspaper of Nebraska" as a reference. "Far-away" are editors like User:Pigsonthewing, who, from literally the other side of the planet, state that the newspaper is not "Reliable", and/or is not sufficient to connote "Notability". We can't all live in Manhattan and have The New Yorker write about the subjects of articles we are trying to write. But after 129 years, the Omaha World Herald is qualified to verify facts like what year a community garden was founded. If you feel otherwise, you should give real justification, rather than just hurl belittling comments across the ocean. You're entitled to your Opinion about whether the List of Community Gardens should be drawn from the Omaha community, or from across all of Nebraska. But for Merge/Delete decisions, you're going to need to demonstrate more than your Opinion. ScottHW (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please provide a citation for me saying that a newspaper is not reliable in this issue; or retract that statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Pigs Citations: You literally are on the other side of the planet. (source: User:Pigsonthewing) You began the AfD process on the Dundee Community Garden article I wrote, citing Notability as your criticism. (source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden. As that discussion continued, numerous independent references were added to the article, including references from the Omaha World Herald newspaper. (source: [Dundee Community Garden:Revision history] After starting the AfD process, you took no further part in the discussion, even though your Notability concerns were addressed with newspaper references. That is an implicit statement that the newspaper references were not worthy of Notability. Other editors directly stated that the OWH newspaper was unworthy of connoting Notability, or criticized the Reliability, which is why my statement was "editors like User:Pigsonthewing". ScottHW (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Neither my name nor user name are "Pigs". I asked you to cite your claim that I had stated 'that the newspaper is not "Reliable"' (the inner quote marks are yours). You haven't, and can't. Your claim was again bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, it's a new article that's still being edited and not obviously inappropriate or of a type usually deleted. Discussion can continue on the talk page(s). Peter James (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be a new article, but it's an unnecessary one, when we already have Community gardens in Nebraska. Why does that not suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article Community gardens in Nebraska only exists as a response to a suggestion from the AfD discussion about Dundee Community Garden. It was created, with no content, at approximately the same time as I created the more appropriate Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, which actually represents a "community" of gardens. Every bit of the content on the Nebraska article was poached from the already-merged Dundee Community Garden article, and from the description (with sources), and the List, that I I put into the Omaha article, User:Pigsonthewing, I don't get what your deal is with this whole string of discussions, Deleting and Merging the articles that editors are actively trying to develop. If you don't want overlapping articles, then just allow the Nebraska article to be closed; no one wrote ANY content for it. I am actively developing the Omaha list, why should that one be the one to be closed?? ScottHW (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, both articles were created recently, and in short space of time. That is not in dispute. However, we only need - if we need any - one. As for your allegation of "poaching", perhaps you ought to re-read the licence terms which you and everyone else agrees to when uploading content to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this case, "poaching" did not refer to anything to do with the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license with which I am well familiar. I am highlighting that only one of these two articles (the Omaha list) is actively being written with content, including references. The other (the Nebraska list) is merely a copy. That meaning, and the fact it highlights should be perfectly clear... because I directly said it in my comment: "It [the Nebraska list] was created, with no content...", and the fact of this matter is clear by simply looking back through the history of the Nebraska list article. I do recognize that I understated the content; the original article had two sentences, one of which was factually incorrect and used a poorly formatted reference, and the other which was copied from what had originally been written for Dundee Community Garden. Within 10 minutes, the article had been edited to include a third sentence, which was also factually incorrect (about USDA funding). For a Merge target article, into which all of the content from the Dundee Community Garden article (which was 6011kb and had represented 11 references) was ostensibly to be merged, that seemed very close to "no content". I stand by my description. User:Pigsonthewing Why are you so insistent on the copy being the article that is kept, and the original article being merged into it?? ScottHW (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Earlier on, I said to you "As I've said to you elsewhere (and as people can decide here, if they wish), feel free to propose moving Community gardens in Nebraska to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska. There is still no need for two articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yep, after which time I proposed Community gardens in Nebraska be merged. You'll clearly see that at the top of the article. If you're having trouble, it's a rectangular box with a little purple flag, and a red and a blue arrow pointed at one another. My question remains: why are you so insistent that the Nebraska article be kept? Without an actual reason to support your position of favoring the Nebraska article over the Omaha article, I expect you to join that Merge discussion I started and support that the Nebraska article be merged into the Omaha article, which would clearly address your repeated critique of not having two articles. And also to relent in your Melvillian attacks on this list article. ScottHW (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Community gardens in Nebraska. NorthAmerica1000 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support merging that article to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska (or at least moving it if they are merged as you propose), only because the creator and main editor of Community gardens in Nebraska has been blocked as a sockpuppet, also as all content is specific to Omaha. Obviously "Community gardens in Nebraska" wouldn't be a suitable redirect and would have to be moved to a more suitable redirect title such as "Community gardens in Omaha". Peter James (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Community gardens in Nebraska has multiple authors, so the original creator being a sock is not an issue here. And if that article is moved or merged, then of course the current name should be kept as a redirect. Others might be created, but we're not limited to just one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Nebraska" alone would be misleading for an article limited to Omaha, so a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. Editors more involved in that part of the encyclopedia appear to prefer the Omaha article. Peter James (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Omaha article should be merged into the Nebraska one and then the redirect will go - appropriately - from city to state. Montanabw(talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge material from this article into Community gardens in Nebraska, then move Community gardens in Nebraska to this title. The Nebraska article contains only material about CGs in Omaha, and its creator hasn't supplied any sources addressing CGs outside of Omaha, so the Omaha title is more appropriate. As of this writing, the Nebraska article contains all of the information in the Omaha article, so the merge step is already done; it remains only to move that article to this more suitable title, eliminating the current duplication. Ammodramus (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you wrote that, the article has acquired a section on Lincoln, Nebraska. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, editor RexxS who self-identifies as living in the West Midlands, England, has helpfully added some information on community gardens in Lincoln, sourced to "Community CROPS", which is an organization that coordinates community gardens in Lincoln. There is no source in the Nebraska article that supports anything about community gardening at the state level. RexxS changed the lede, making it appear to have a state-level source, but that source is merely a Google-UK search. The lede currently reads: "There are numerous community gardens in the U.S. state of Nebraska, mainly clustered around the principal cities of Omaha and Lincoln.[1]
  1. ^ "community gardens in Nebraska". Google Search. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
I don't think that adequately supports the state-level article. --doncram 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Community gardens in Nebraska. Lincoln has community gardens as well and there may be others. It seems sensible to have a single decent-sized state-wide article, rather than a collection of small city articles. A broader scope will attract more editors and there's no reason why those mainly interested in Omaha shouldn't edit that section, rather than a stand-alone article. The reader will also benefit from being able to see all of the information on Nebraska on a single page, rather than on several. --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi RexxS. Thanks, I am glad you have contributed to the Community gardens in Nebraska article. Your adding a section and two source footnotes to Community CROPS of Lincoln is a help towards making a case that a state-wide article can exist. Let me be entirely clear: I think it is relevant to note that you are from the West Midlands of England, where editor Pigsonthewing has associations (he set up an editathon event at the West Midlands Police Museum, for example). (It is relevant to note because the location of editors has been made an issue, above.) I suppose you are on-line and/or off-line friends, which is fine, and you don't need to comment on that. I personally welcome you to contributing in this general topic area and here, which is perfectly consistent with me having noted somewhere above that I supposed local editors would have more access to sources and so on. What I said allowed for anyone with interest (local or not) to contribute. It's great that you have interest.
    • I disagree that merging city-level info to a state-level article is necessarily better. Why not merge the state-level article to the nation-level article? Wouldn't that be better?
    • About the Nebraska state-level article, I disagree that your Google UK search, which you added to the lede, supports the wikipedia-notability of the topic. For list-articles at AFD, many editors will argue that coverage of the topic at a general level is needed, else the list is a mere collection of indiscriminate information. Until the recent creation of the Nebraska article, there were no state-level articles in Wikipedia. See Category:Community gardening in the United States. There is a country level article Community gardening in the United States (with a "By state" section not including Nebraska and not including Oregon), and there are three city-level articles: for List of community gardens in Portland, Oregon, Community gardens in New Orleans, and this Omaha, Nebraska article. It seems to me that there are some communities of community gardens, at a city level, which are clearly notable, including for Omaha. There are sources on the topic of the city articles. It has not been established anywhere that there is a state-level wikipedia-valid topic. --doncram 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Battleground. C'mon people. This subject area has become a battleground, and nothing is being gained by prolonging this AFD. See wp:BATTLEGROUND and see wp:WINNING. I think it is fine that RexxS and maybe others wish to develop the Nebraska state-level article some, although it may not survive a future AFD because there are not yet any sources supporting the state-level topic. However I think there is plenty of evidence, even consensus, within these discussions (above, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden, the two articles' talk pages, and perhaps elsewhere), that there are sources supporting the topic of community gardens in Omaha, and that being a community of community gardens.
In the Dundee Community Garden AFD, editor Candleabracadabra provided 7 Omaha-level sources (not yet added to this article, given contention): seven empty city lots to be turned into community gardens, City planning document, local award, News story on city council vote for community garden, news story on a community garden makeover, story on celebration of community gardens and another story on a community garden program in Omaha. Candleabracadabra commented "Seems to be kind of a big deal in Omaha." and Ammodramus replied "Merge per Candleabracadabra, who's come up with enough sources to establish notability for a community-gardens-in-Omaha article; move target article to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, since the sources don't seem to cover any other locations in the state."
It is interesting that the Omaha gardeners have links with the Portland gardeners, city-level community to city-level community, not state-to-state (I saw this in some source that i can't find now, about Omaha and Portland representatives sharing on some idea at a national conference, i think about the bike tour between gardens.) Thus the topic of the current article is supported. If anything, the state-level article should be deleted. But I suggest we just KEEP them both for a while, and let productive editors from anywhere try to develop them for a while. These AFDs, contentious editing at the articles (e.g. silly, passive-aggressive tagging), and so on, are not making this a pleasant environment for mainspace article editing. I suggest to the closer that this be closed "No consensus". Sincerely, --doncram 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: There is an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill Farm Community Garden, which may be of interest. Please consider commenting there. Also, FYI, I have given notice of this current AFD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. --doncram 19:35, 29 May 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Community_gardens_in_Omaha,_Nebraska&oldid=1076166796"