Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bull Run Regional Park

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, noting that the original nominator is now also supporting the keeping of the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Run Regional Park[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think the relevant guideline is WP:GEOFEAT which it does not pass, rather than WP:GEOLAND. The place is legally recognized (by NOVA Parks), but it is not "populated" in the usual meaning of the term (campers do not count). Moreover, I do not think it is a "named natural feature" either - the boundaries of the park are the result of human decision, not geology, for instance.

The history of the place is way below what would be required for "artificial geographical features" under GEOFEAT.

I could not confirm that it "became known for concerts" in the 1970s (and the refs do not mention it). There are listings of the place at tickets.com and the like, but I saw no indication of past concerts. That could be the base of a claim to GNG though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority, which will improve and expand that article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have many parks with pages and this is a large regional park. The average person looking for info about the park is more likely to search the park name and less likely to recognize the park authority. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MergePark does not pass WP:GEOFEAT as it's not protected on the national level, but rather the regional level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steene01 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In contrast to the opinions above, I think WP:GEOLAND applies because the article's subject comprises both a named natural feature (the patch of land) and an artificial feature (the recreational facilities built upon it). As such, the union set of notability applies to this article. We clearly have descriptions of both natural features and park facilities available in secondary sources like AllTrails and Reserve America (both already cited) and many others from search results, so I think the relevant inclusion threshold has been met. Der yck C. 10:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "natural feature" clause in GEOLAND mentions "mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc." - I see that as mention any large natural formation that was given a name by the local population ("Mount Foo", "River Bar"). A park's boundaries are defined by humans. While there is more than basic info such as GPS coordinates etc. I would argue these are attached to the park (maintained by humans), not the patch of land, so the latter does not meet GEOLAND and we should fall back on GEOFEAT. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not going to bother trying to grok geoland vs geofeat. But a 2.5 sq mile public or private park that has annual events of public interest is going to be in the news and is going to be looked for by readers and we therefore have lots of park articles. Wp:gng trumps all other notability guidelines anyhow. --97.32.155.173 (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:GNG is the golden guideline for notability, but where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:GEOFEAT is the guideline for "buildings and objects" - artificial manmade structures. Unless the park is made of concrete, it doesn't apply. In any case there's no need to overthink it - there's plenty enough coverage in multiple books on camping, hiking, and so on, found through google books search. It's significant and in-depth enough to write an encyclopedic article from. No doubt there is much more coverage in old newspapers or offline books, since the park opened in 1960. I don't think a merge to Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority would be good, since that article doesn't have information and history on individual parks. -- IamNotU (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - User:Arxiloxos added some good sources via HotBeam. From User:IamNotU's indications, I also found this. So that is a keep for me (but I cannot withdraw with the merge !votes). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:32, 3 June 2016 (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.