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 Yantacaw Brook. General consensus that there isn't enough sourcing for a standalone article, but that there is enough for content to be included somewhere (disregarding the WP:JNN stuff), with the most suitable entry seeming to be Yantacaw Brook. ansh666 20:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey (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)

This is a municipal park, it does not meet WP:GNG. There is no sourcing other than link to a list of Montclair parks. The contents of the article seem to be original research WP:OR. Also does not meet criteria for inclusion as per WP:NOTTRAVEL. DEPRODED by User:Djflem because the article has existed since 2008. Longevity is never a valid reason to keep an article. Rusf10 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • COMMENT: The edit sumary said exists since 2008; could be merged; part of series. Please don't cherry pick to misrepresent other eidtors. Fact stands that it could be easily merged and that is it is part of a template/series which adds to comprehensive coverage in WikipediaDjflem (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the nomination misrepresents the PROD, which can be confirmed with this diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Fails GNG. Rhadow (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This municipal park does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge / Redirect to Yantacaw Brook or Montclair, New Jersey Sadly, the nominator patently refuses to comply with WP:BEFORE, which requires seeking alternatives to deletion. Furthermore, the box that displays above this page when editing rather clearly states "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."
  "Why?" is indeed the question. Why do we continue to tolerate the abuse of process here at AfD from an editor who refuses to comply with policy? Alansohn (talk) Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:If you got a problem, take it to the proper venue or keep you big mouth shut. If you want to comment here, talk about the article, not me. Maybe you can explain why a park that can't even be properly sourced deserves mentioning anywhere.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my big mouth shut? Please read WP:NPA. Notability is on a standalone basis. Do you oppose a merge to Montclair, New Jersey or do you simply refuse to comply with deletion policy? Alansohn (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence of NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor.", maybe you need to read it. Almost every deletion discussion "the nominator this" or "the nominator that" And "keep your big mouth shut" (I'll say it again) is accurate reflection of the fact that you feel the need to add lengthy attacks on me to deletion discussions. The only reliable source that exists would be this: [[1]] and that is simply not enough. There is nothing worth merging. A list of parks might be appropriate in the Montclair article buts that's it.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on content *AND* I will comment on your continuing abuse of process and failure by the nominator to follow policy. The persistent failure to comply with policy regarding consideration of a merge only adds to the problems you've created and refused to address. If you've got a problem, why not run off to WP:ANI for the third, fourth and fifth time. The previous attempts haven't accomplished much. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:I've answered all of your questions, even though I am under no obligation to do so. (see WP:SATISFY) You seem to be the one that is having a problem here, I strongly encourage you to take this to ANI or cease you condescending commentary immediately.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have amended ,my !vote as the sources identified demonstrate independent notability; worst case is that the article should be merged into Yantacaw Brook or the municipal article, a choice never considered by the nominator. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Yantacaw Brook This park is one of several along the course of the brook and would be the approprpriate place for such infoDjflem (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I would also support Yantacaw Brook as a merge target. Alansohn (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At a minimum, Merging to a brook or municipality article is preferable to outright deletion. However this is a municipal park and it is reasonable to believe that substantial sources do exist, even if they are not online and readily available. In similar AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webb Mountain Park by same deletion-nominator, it turns out that specific off-line source(s) have been found. wp:BEFORE seems not to have been met here. Even if no online sources are found, we can presume offline sources exist, in the municipality and region's planning documents, in original park designs and dedications and so on, and in tourist and nature guidebooks and elsewhere. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Comments like Maybe you can explain why a park that can't even be properly sourced deserves mentioning anywhere are just snide and unhelpful. --Doncram (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we get to presume that sources exist? (especially when we're trying to establish notability) Where's the policy that say to presume sourcing exists? We either know they exist or they don't. You and alansohn want to keep throwing WP:BEFORE out there, but nobody has come up with any reliable sources. And my comments are inappropriate, but I'm sure you're perfectly okay with alansohn's attack on me?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, Alansohn's comments sound like they are frustrated but not derisive.

For lots of types of places, including historic sites listed on the U.S. National Register, and museums, and miniature train rides, and caves, and other public attractions including parks, we know from experience that sources will usually exist. Specifically there are currently about 2,300 historic site articles that are inadequately sourced. You are free to tag them, but if you proceed with nominating them for deletion you will lose 2,300 times over. There are other topics too, like historic newspapers and publishers, where tagging but not deletion-nominating is appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that argument is nothing indicates that this park is a historic site. I also can't believe we give auto-notability to miniature train rides.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the park is a registered historic site. It is like those, where notability can be presumed. What is written at wp:COMMONOUTCOMES oughta be expanded about public attractions in general.

About miniature train rides, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan AuSable Valley Railroad is the important precedent. Among other arguments, it was pointed out that as a transportation system carrying members of the public, it would have to pass state and/or other transportation system requirements, inspections, etc., which must generate documentation. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm finding plenty of coverage of the park and its history as part of the Sigler Farm, coverage of its bikeways, and coverage of other historical aspects such as Eli Manning filming a Toyota commercial at the park. This a well written and comprehensive article that documents a very notable park that includes significant water features, amenities, amd cultural significance in a populated area. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see I I understand this. What you're saying is the park is notable because of its proximity to a historical farm (its not even next to it, a few blocks away, but even so) and because Eli Manning filmed a commercial there? So I suppose every place Eli Manning walks into automatically becomes notable too? Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED--Rusf10 (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're saying they reviewed available sources and found relevant stuff that could be mentioned in the article, some of it going towards establishing notability. A commercial being filmed there can certainly be mentioned in the article; whether it goes towards notability depends a bit upon the specifics of the coverage. Twisting what someone says into something else, then getting mad at the something else, is not healthy.

About Sigler Farm, I am not bothering to look up anything about it, because the deletion nomination and much of this discussion seems to be going along in a pretty information-free vein. I imagine that part or all of the park might once have been part of Sigler farm, and the farmhouse and whatever remnant of the farm is now separate. Anyhow, coverage about Sigler Farm probably could cover the park. Again I am not looking at specific sources. It is speculation either way about what the unexamined coverage says, but the reasonable presumption is that substantial coverage exists.

Please do try searching on Sigler Farm:

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

--Doncram (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google search comes up with absolutely nothing linking the park to the farm.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in detail on page 14 of the book Legendary Locals of Montclair, New Jersey. One of many examples of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in National Register of Historic Places 1986 preliminary survey of historic resources in the Montclair area: [2], which led to various districts and properties being NRHP-listed later. Apparently then there was still a mix of remnants of farms and subdivisions. Not saying that is substantial coverage about the park itself, but the park is a landmark in the area and other things such as neighborhoods of historic houses are described in relation to it. --Doncram (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Yantacaw Brook The sources presented above are enough to demonstrate some level of notability but probably not significant enough to demonstrate WP:GNG-notability. Merging relevant content to the parent article as not enough for a standalone article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Not notable. Seconcepts (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfortunately - Nothing to establish notability. It's a cute little article, in a way, and I'm sure a great little park, but a park does not automatically merit an encyclopedia article just by existing. Coverage in reliable secondary sources beyond a trivial mention of it existing are necessary. What is being written about the park? Apparently next to nothing. At least least we would need some in depth coverage of its qualities and impact from multiple sources. A notable city park has that. I would not object to merging any cited material but there doesn't seem to be any to speak of. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to Yantacaw Brook, too much sourcing to warrant deletion. From the 1930s (when old estates & farms were purchased by developers of housing estates) through the early 1950s (when the last open tracts of land were filed with suburban split-levels), there was a fair amount of discussion in the NYTimes, Herald Trib and other papers of the attractions of suburban Montclair (descirbing this and other town parks as a reason to move there) and discussing land use battles involving this park - an extension of the park along the Creek involving a parkway was much discussed, and there were at least two proposals to block land purchases by developers and add acreage to this Park. (articles like: Montclair Offers Superior Schools and Homes for Families of Prosperous Commuters: Jersey Town Also Takes Pride In Civic Thrift, Social Life Montclair's Retail Sales Average $538 Per Person Yearly, $268 Above National Average; Most of Town Area Already Occupied by Housing,, Cresbaugh, John M, Jr. New York Herald Tribune (1926-1962); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]15 Feb 1953: 1C. AND "the report specifically advocates an extension of Yantacaw Brook Park" in: Planners List New City Hall as Montclair Need: Municipal Building Inadequate and Antiquated, Says Town Board Report Civic Center Is Suggested Preservation of Residential Advantages Emphasized Special to the Herald Tribune. New York Herald Tribune (1926-1962); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]03 Jan 1932: 33.) I have not attempted to sort out the history of the Park and whether/when it was expanded. But it could undoubtedly be done using old news reports. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Alansohn: to return and replace the edit he made an hour or so ago, and remind Nom, User:Rusf10, to WP:AGF - it looks as though in expanding a comment, Alansohn somehow managed to delete a large swath of material. I find it hard to imagine that anyone - let alone an experienced editor - could have made that deletion deliberately. Mistakes happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory:I'm not saying it wasn't a mistake, but I don't think there was any other reasonable solution other than a revert. He is welcome to fix the error. And, good thing you fixed that typo, he may have found it highly offensive.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Rusf10, E.M.Gregory and all other participants here, my apologies for my carelessness in failing to realize that much of the active discussion had been inadvertently deleted after being mindlessly oblivious to the fact that I was editing an old version of this discussion. After reviewing the gist of the subsequent discussion it appears that I would not necessarily make the same changes, as there has been appropriate consideration given to a merge by many editors here, though policy still dictates that we should be hearing from *ALL* participants as to whether or not a merge and / or redirect should be considered and, if not, an explanation for why a non-delete option should be rejected. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 21 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.