Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas)

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 delete. As it stands, this does not appear to meet WP:NGEO or WP:GNG. Number 57 13:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overlook Park (Lawrence, Kansas) (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)

The subject fails WP:NGEO as it is neither populated nor historic nor a natural feature. There is routine government mention of the park but not enough to pass GNG, in my opinion. The article was de-PROD'd without a rationale so I'm sending this to AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The place is populated insofar as it is a place that people go and so it passes WP:NGEO. It is part of Clinton Lake (Kansas) and so there is an obvious alternative to deletion which has not been considered as required by WP:BEFORE. And, in any case, there seems to be adequate coverage in works such as Kansas Off the Beaten Path. Andrew D. (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I considered redirecting the article but since you de-PROD'd it for no apparent reason, I felt AfD was a better method of determining consensus rather than unilaterally moving the content. I'm sure you agree. I don't think your concept that humans could be found in the park sometimes meets GEOLAND's requirement for population. Kansas off the Beaten Path mentions Clinton Lake but not the park. It's not clear that the Wells Overlook County Park on page 21 is the same place and I don't see how that rises to pass GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is very hypocritical of Andrew to critize you here when he flat out refused to explain his reasoning for the dePROD until this was taken to AfD.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no one has to give any reason to remove a WP:PROD, just removal is contesting enough. Providing a reason is strongly encouraged but not required.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that. But multiple articles were deproded and I went to Andrew's talk page to specifically ask him why and he refused to explain.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just popped over to the editor's talk page. It looks to me like the editor did answer your questions. But even if the editor did not that would not be a reason to delete or not delete this article in AFD. Please cease this line of discussion to avoid any possibility of WP:Wikihounding or Wikipedia:WikiBullying. Editors are strongly encouraged but not required to provide a reason for removing a PROD. It's fair to ask. It's fair to ask for more clarity when a reason is given but not understood. But bringing it up at AFD potentially as a personal attack? No, we don't do that here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Parks are not geographic features, they are man-made designations. It is not a populated place. A populated place by definition is somewhere that people live. Unless you want to count some homeless guy sleeping on one of the parks benches every night, I don't how this rises to the status of populated place. There is no significant reliable source coverage for the park and therefore fails WP:GNG--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGEO, and any other notability guideline I can find.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Overland Park, Kansas. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment if we merge, we should merge to either Lawrence, Kansas or Douglas County, Kansas. Overland Park is in Johnson County, Kansas and merging there would not make sense.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best merge targets would be Clinton State Park or Clinton Lake (Kansas) as this is all one complex managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (but note that they are currently affected by the shutdown). Note that it should not be confused with the Wells Overlook Park, which is another park nearby. The difficulty that people are having with this, well-demonstrates Wikipedia's important role as a gazetteer, per the 5 pillars. All named geographical features should have an entry in Wikipedia so that functions like the Places button in the official Wikipedia app can work properly -- showing the features in your location. This place passes WP:NGEO for this reason. Andrew D. (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument is invalid, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nonsense. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY link indicates that we should not present our material in the style of a Yellow Pages or other commercial directory. A gazetteer is a different concept, listing geographical names as an index. That's explicitly part of our function per WP:5 and the WMF official interfaces increasingly support this so that people accessing Wikipedia from a smart phone, can get appropriate information about their locale. For example, I create pages about places in London such as Hanging Sword Alley and these include coordinates which then enable such interfaces. Such sensible features should not be disrupted by drive-by deletionism for which there is no policy-based justification. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.Nonsensical keep arguments.Winged Blades^Godric 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It passes WP:NGEO, which is what matters for places. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot but ever underestimate your ability to pick out the most ridiculous reasons and to twist the spirit of the guidelines to fit your views.Winged Blades^Godric 13:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I am revising my vote below. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not pass NGEO. Nothing in NGEO indicates that it is applicable to parks. A park is not a natural feature nor populated place.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." FloridaArmy (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG and NGEO. Trouts or topic bans await. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the discussion here of WP:NGEO guidelines. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The arguments around WP:NGEO are interesting. It seems to me that there could be some clarification written toward this guideline that could apply here. Presuming that the closing admin may consider that the arguments made around the WP:NGEO issue are strictly met based on present status, I would also ask for consideration that perhaps the guideline was not written to address cases such as this--guidelines are great tools but they also can be greatly lacking in clarity at times. Therefore, I will retain my position of delete (noted above) and add to that the policy ignore all rules also points toward deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages as per WP:NORDIRECTORY. Fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep WP:NGEO doesn't give any clear guidance on parks (which are not populated places), I expect that a revision would allow for this to be kept (as Wikipedia does function as a gazetteer). There's no way it meets WP:GNG, but the primary (government) sources that exist should be enough to write an article. Clinton Lake (Kansas) is the redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:46, 25 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.