Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webb Mountain Park

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 keep. Yunshui 雲水 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webb Mountain Park[edit]

Webb Mountain Park (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)

Municipal park that has no notability and fails WP:GNG. Only taking to AFD since it was previously WP:PRODed. Rusf10 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment to Nomination- The article also fails WP:NOTTRAVEL--Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything relevant about 90% of your comments here, but I digress. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and being that most of the sources being found for this article are travel guides, the topic clearly falls under that designation. "Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc."--Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The post's ad hominem doesn't successfully hide the post's use of inapplicable policy to discount WP:RS. 
As for the cited policy, is "Webb Mountain Park" the notable location?  If so, the post has stipulated that the topic of the AfD is notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can cut the WP:WIKILAWYERING crap. The location's coverage is limited to guide books. While they may be considered a reliable source, it still falls under what Wikipedia is not.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guidebooks are okay, and the coverage is guidebooks except for the coverage that is not guidebooks, such as regional planning documents such as 61 page report cited below, which is surely a reliable source for some information. Or is any coverage about a park deemed to be a guidebook? --Doncram (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The report is a great reliable source, but unfortunately it does nothing to establish notability since it is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. As a government report it is not independent. WP:GNG require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"--Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the three pages about the park in "Connecticut Woodlands, Volumes 53-56 published by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association., 1988", cited below, are dismissed why? Because while that doesn't sound like a travel-style guidebook, it sounds like a comprehensive reliable source about woodlands, as a reference-type work it can be deemed a guide to the topic area, so it should be dismissed? I'm sorry, but comments here seem to be trying to kick sand on anything put forward. I'd say "disingenuous" but I'd have to look that up. --Doncram (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
any policy based argument for keeping?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is quite well known in the local area among rock climbers as a great training area and it's integration of natural education into the local school curriculum is also unique in the area. These are notable areas that this article needs to be expanded on, not deleted because they are not yet developed, from the bit of research I did on the park. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [was "Keep"] It's a park. Parks are more or less natural features and public facilities. This is a short nice article with photo and sourcing, fixed up after a long-ago prod. The article is quite old and helpful to have in wikipedia, no reason to delete. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What policy makes parks inherently notable? They are not natural features, but man-made designations. The arguments that it is old (see WP:OLDARTICLE and helpful(see WP:USEFUL) are really poor arguments to make.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for reasons noted by Rusf10 Burley22 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [was "Merge", probably to Monroe, Connecticut."] It is a municipal park, created in 1972, of that municipality, and it would be perfectly appropriate to be covered there. I don't see the point of dropping the article, and I would prefer to see guidebooks and other sources prove well enough to keep it outright. But there's no reason to delete it fully; we should search for alternatives to deletion; merge/redirect to the municipality article at a minimum is better. Also if more coverage turns up later, the article can be restored with edit history intact, properly crediting the original editors. --Doncram (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to "Keep" based on User:FloridaArmy's arguments below, including that they have verified it has substantial coverage in offline sources, reportedly including three pages in "Connecticut Woodlands, Volumes 53-56 published by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association., 1988." This is as expected, that there would exist coverage. An article does not have to include any sources at all, we just need to have reasonable expectation that substantial sources do exist. Here there is now assertion, which I accept on good faith, that specific such sources do exist. For other parks, even where the sources are not specifically known, there should be strong presumption that such sources do exist.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey, similar AFD about another park, also nominated by deletion-nominator here. I fear a deluge. --Doncram (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this is an important and significant 640 acre park that includes a notable rock formation used by climbers as well as trails that connect up to a 13.5 mile network. The park and adjacent discovery center are important sites of biological study and the parkhas been documented in reliable soirces as an important home to native flora. The park has also been the site of well documented biological control efforts. The site is also well covered for its trails and trail improvements done by community members. Plenty of coverage. Just for its role as an important rock climbing area it is noted here, for example, with subatantial coverage of the clinbing opportunities it offers as well as its significant geological features which are notable even apart from the site being notable and signicant as a rock climbing site. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore its discussed here as part of an important historic architectural preservation and land conservation effort. "He wants to create a community centered around equestrian interests with trails, stables and paddocks for horses. There would also be access for the non-horse owning set to rent horses, take riding lessons and ride through trails that would connect with Webb Mountain Park and the Webb Mountain Discovery Center, which back up to the property and contain more than 640 acres." In what alternate universe is a 640 135 acre park that is part of 640 acres of protected lands, that functions as an important biological preserve, geologic feature, hiking amenity, discovery center area, natural rock climbing area, study area, and cultural feature now warrant inclusion in the "sum of all knowledge"? If it's not notable how did I find all of this out about it from a plethora of reliable sources in just a few minutes? FloridaArmy (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with that source is the historical building is NOT in the park, it is next to the park. The article has nothing more than a mere mention of connecting a trail to the park. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I argue its notability was inherited? It is covered substantially in reliable independent sources. That's just one of many examples where it's noted and discussed. Happens to be part of an ongoing and important preservation, conservation, and recreational development plan which I note is in addition to all the other coverage of its signicance in a variety of roles. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ctert.org/pdfs/Monroe_WebbMtnExt_330.pdf is a working link to that PDF file, a 2005 report which has substantial information about the park. It strikes me that a municipal park as big as 640 acres (2.6 km2) (park plus associated protected area, anyhow) in Connecticut is unusual, too, especially being in Fairfield County, closest to NYC. NYC's Central Park is apparently 778 acres (3.15 km2), by the way.--Doncram (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The books FloridaArmy just listed actually help make the argument that the article falls under WP:NOTTRAVEL since they are all travel guides.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that another editor just replied about NOTTRAVEL along the same lines, but I was just going to say: NOTTRAVEL says that wikipedia shouldn't be a travel guide, it simply does not say that travel guides can't be used as sources. Travel guides certainly can be reliable sources for many things, and are frequently used. And not all the sources cited are travel guides. I probably won't reply further. --Doncram (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Deprodding is not a WP:DEL-REASON.  WP:BEFORE D1 search finds sources on Google web, Google news, and Google books.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep   Specifically with regard to claims that this article violates WP:NOTTRAVEL, I think that standard is being misunderstood. The fact that Webb Mountain Park happens to be mentioned in guidebooks is irrelevant to assessing the article's compliance with WP:NOTTRAVEL. WP:NOTTRAVEL really refers to not injecting excessive (and non-encyclopedic) guidebook-type information into an article. So WP:NOTTRAVEL suggests, for example, that the article for Monroe, Connecticut shouldn't list all of the restaurants in the town, or the phone numbers and addresses of various entertainment venues, or ramble on at length about surrounding tourist attractions that aren’t actually in the town. WP:NOTTRAVEL therefore really doesn't have any bearing on this AfD. All of that being said, the article is quite poorly written and definitely needs an overhaul, though there seems to be sufficient published materials in which it is referenced as to exceed the threshold below which it would be deleted for lack of notability. —Jgcoleman (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2018 (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/Webb_Mountain_Park&oldid=1068834010"