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 no consensus. and I don't see one forthcoming in this three week old discussion Star Mississippi 01:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson Park (Chehalis, Washington)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Henderson Park (Chehalis, Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run-of-the-mill local park with no claims to non-local notability, thus not likely to meet GNG and NGEO. Can be easily merged into the local city's article. SounderBruce 06:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I have 30 minutes for dinner on my 24 hour shift until I have to go back to the last stragglers of "Covid isn't real" patients. Let's do this!

1. The park has existed for 114 years with many interesting historical stories one would expect of something this old.

2. The park has undergone several revisions and purposes over the course of its history.

3. The park was important to the residents of the city since it was donated and is a crucial part of Chehalis' operating infrastructure.

4. All of this is mentioned and ref'd in the article.

As to the dismissiveness towards Henderson Park :

1. The park is hardly "run-of-the-mill". 114 years old? Funny aside that the city forgot about the park immediately? A connection to a now defunct Chehalis park? It houses several city government departments including as a disaster preparedness site in a city that often suffers from flooding?

2. Article passes the WP:GNG test...GNG does not require that CNN or the NY Times write about the park. Article is sourced and reliable.

3. As for WP:NGEO, "'...sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability."' Passed! Again, no requirement that the BBC or the LA Times write about it nor that the location has to reach some sort of statewide, nationwide, or worldwide recognition.

4. "It's hardly even a park, more just the lawn of some admin buildings."...Come on, dude...delete 'cause I don't see a swing set? You gotta come with more than that.

This article cannot be redirected and "easily be merged into the local city's article". The nominator disliked the park system being discussed in too much fashion on the Chehalis page. Disliked the parks being discussed in too much fashion on the Parks and rec page for Chehalis. Now dislikes the park having it's own page.

This notion that small city/small town USA can only have things written if it is already known to some wide audience (or reaches an undefined target of vague notability) is laughable (and liberals like me wonder why rural USA feels unheard and forgotten!). Who in a holy monkey's name in Miami, or Chicago, or Austin is ever going to know about Chehalis or Henderson Park unless some unfortunate disaster strikes it or a celebrity gets in trouble with local law enforcement? But we have to keep those readers in mind when we type...not the Wiki users who are looking based on their own personal curiosity or educational growth. The entire premise of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge to all looking for it, regardless of what led them to begin their discovery. Who is arrogant enough here to deem that Henderson Park, at 114 years old, deserves nothing but a boring, truncated sentence or two, lacking nuance and substance, as if that's enough? How will the nominator be satisfied when he has repeatedly held that the Chehalis page and parts of it's story must be limited by these vague rules?

Kinda odd, huh? Since people don't know Chehalis, let's not write about it!

Goofy.

As an example, I direct you to Mayfield, Kentucky. I visited the page after the terrible loss of life during the December 2021 tornado strike...and I walked away from that page wanting more. More about the city, the schools, it's economy, and YES!!!, it's parks! My husband wanted to know more about Mayfield's minor league baseball history. And we couldn't because we can't, based on this wayward thinking of what Wikipedia should be - an encyclopedia, run by a volunteer effort that holds sway that knowledge must be intentionally curtailed because...is this important to the people of anywhere else??? Mayfield was in that moment, if those 275,000 visitors to their page the week after that tornado is any indication.

And Mayfield, Kentucky had a moment, a disastrous one, yes, but a moment via Wikipedia to announce itself, to speak to the reader what the city is, what it means, what it offers. It had a chance to provide knowledge of itself to 275,000 over the course of one week alone. But the nominating editor, and editors like them, doesn't think that way. Henderson Park is a small area in a small city that the average person would never know of. So, let's keep it that way...?

Goofy.

Henderson Park is being forgotten. It is overlooked. Despite 114 years, it may be lost to history. Because it is a small part of a small city known by a small percentage of the larger world. But it doesn't have to be. Wikipedia has been a massive success story to the common reader. Friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers of mine since Wikipedia first started have mentioned time upon time how they discovered something - something local - in their own small towns and cities thanks to reading about it here. A co-worker in January mentioned to me she discovered a park that she never knew of, a mile from her home here around the Puget Sound...and she's lived there for 10 years! The article was just three, four sentences long. Needs to be expanded because the park history is just too cool to not write about. She found that by coming to Wikipedia. She and her husband go there every Sunday for coffee now, rain or, well, since this is the PNW, rain.

She wasn't a resident of St. Louis, Toronto, or San Diego. She's never been to the eastern seaboard much less lived there. She was a local resident who discovered something new about her neighborhood from coming to Wikipedia. And what in the name of Susan Lucci is wrong with that?!

That's how Henderson Park can matter. That's what people in and around Chehalis can experience. Learning something new about something old in Chehalis. Motivating them to explore more of Chehalis, its parks, the surrounding communities, western Washington...a real Wiki-rabbit hole! Henderson Park isn't some gated community common area, accessible only to residents, patrolled by moms and dads who will sue everyone west of the Rockies when their precious angel skins their knee on the slide. It's a park open to all, existing before the Titanic went down and (my husband wishes to add this...my sincerest apologies for some upcoming baseball boredom...) donated the year the Cubs last won the World Series before the "blessing" (really?) of the 2016 championship. If I can just wait it out until I can legally put him in a home...

I stand by the article, obviously, because I believe delisting the article, and therefore the history of this park, is a complete disservice to spreading knowledge. Yes, Henderson Park is not in Seattle, and it's not Lake People Park, nor is it Louisa Boren Park, and though the park may not mean much to the editors above, nor should it, why should it cease to matter to others, even if those others are just the good people of a small city of "only" 7,000.

For the record, I believe that the editor of origin for this deletion nomination is not an impartial party due to his documented negative interactions with edits at Chehalis, Washington as well as towards my attempts to broaden the scope of what is written about said city and local communities. While I am not a great editor, I had hopes that his lack of following my edits around lately meant he was finally going to leave me alone but alas, he persists.

Shortiefourten (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for deletion discussions; but in any case, a major park in a smaller city can be notable if it's covered by non-local sources or part of a larger system. Also, hounding is a strong accusation and one not made in good faith. I'm simply doing my part in housekeeping and pruning to prevent articles on non-notable things from proliferating and creating an increased maintenance burden on the project. My interests happen to cover the state I live in, which is not territory owned by any one editor. SounderBruce 06:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did not argue a single point I made to defend the article, so I'll take that as a win.
So, let's go off on the tangent of your own making...'cause tangents always bring consensus! You will need to support this - "a major park in a smaller city can be notable if it's covered by non-local sources or part of a larger system". First, there is no WP citing this, thus making this deletion request an opinion, not an AGF effort. Second, you do remember the Chehalis Park and Rec article I built that you stamped with a huge citation box after it was barely a half-day out of AfC space, yeah? The whole page of a "larger system" of the city of Chehalis' park, uh, system?
I did not use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument...I'm not even sure after all I wrote how it's that with which you came away with. What I attempted to achieve was a realistic call to use Mayfield, Kentucky as an example as to how we are failing in bringing knowledge to readers simply because the article is about a small, not widely known topic. Using personal stories to show how Wikipedia is far more reaching at a LOCAL LEVEL, which should be a bonus not a burden, but thusly overlooked (or laughed at?) by using over-interpreted rules which prevent rural areas their due. This whole, "it's only notable if it's widely notable", using an undefined target of vague notability, is harmful, especially for smaller communities who can't realistically compete with Seattle, Tacoma, or Olympia in wider coverage and writings.
Furthermore, for someone who openly accused me of WP:OWN in March 2021, and then to write here that your interests to protect WA articles from what you believe to be burdens and non-notability because you live/have an interest here, seems, well...can you not see this, honestly? I have 4 decades of being a Washingtonian on my resume, born and raised, loving this state...why can't I use that as an excuse to hide behind AGF, too?
My writing that you are not impartial is therefore a valid AGF statement to make based on your very statement above, and your following me is backed by your repeated, and disturbingly immediate, edits over my own throughout last year. Your dismissive edits to the Chehalis page in August 2019 motivated me to become an editor. I suspect nuance may not be your bag, so to be clear, this is not a compliment. My feelings on this matter are clear and there are no ambiguities - I find your editing and behavior towards me controlling and threatening and I reiterate my March 2021 statement - do not contact me and leave me alone.
Shortiefourten (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's not exactly difficult to expand a table, is it?—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to stuff three paragraphs into a table, sure, but it would be unweildy and especially hard to read on mobile devices. I think the information is better presented in its own article. NemesisAT (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That table ought to be converted to prose anyway, per WP:WHENTABLE.—S Marshall T/C 17:40, 23 March 2022 (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.
More