Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Camp Creek 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. ST47 (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Camp Creek Park

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

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. Having a single feature of the park mentioned in a directory is not the significant coverage needed to have an article here. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ I do not know which one feature and directory to which you refer. I may be able to find more sources on the history of the cemetery and other aspects of the park, though that will take a few days and may not contribute enough to help the article remain. I suggest a merge with Foristell, Missouri or St. Charles County, Missouri articles.DiamondRemley39 (talk)

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, being covered in detail in sources such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reedy Press is a vanity press. So besides just being a brief mention in a guidebook (which doesn't speak to notability), it's not a reliable source either. Sources that verify existence are not sufficient to show notability. The presumption of notability afforded state and national parks does not extend to local and county parks. I could support a partial merge to the county as an ATD. John from Idegon (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more sources since deletion was proposed.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources you've added are mentions in guidebooks. They lack details enough to be considered as proof of notability. Additionally, only one is from outside metro St. Louis, and that is a guide to the park's trail system, not the park as a whole. Still failing WP:ORGDEPTH. DiamondRemley39, you are only allowed one !vote, so please strike one. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Indian Camp Creek, but in any event WP:PRESERVE the information on the page. SpinningSpark 23:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least five more books I can examine for relevant information, but if only books considered reliable are those published by traditional presses, while local history focused vanity presses such as Reedy Press and otherwise published histories are not (is this always the case, despite content and sources in such books?); and if books that focus on one element of the park such as its trails or its homestead do not help towards notability, then the other books to examine may or may not help. Merging with St. Charles County is likely the the most prudent option. Thank you.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DiamondRemley39: I wouldn't be so quick to strike your "keep". Self-published books can be considered reliable if the author is a recognised expert – see WP:SPS. The assumption here is that the publisher has taken no steps for fact checking themselves so we are relying entirely on the author. If an unreliable SPS has cited a source, then the solution is to cite the original source, not the SPS. SpinningSpark 17:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a park almost 1 square mile in size (600 acres vs. 1 sq mile being 640 acres), the largest in its area. And there are sources in the article, and it is covered in multiple guidebooks, at least. I don't buy the dismissal of guidebooks as sources. See wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION, an essay to which I contributed. In general public attractions ARE notable. Public parks have documentation in reports about their original establishment/purchase (which can be presumed to exist, though not yet found and cited here), and have regular newspaper coverage about events and features etc. And the guidebooks' coverage is basically fine, too. There is a wikipedia guideline (wp:NOTTRAVEL) about how a Wikipedia article should not merely consist of telephone numbers and directions to the attraction and opening hours (some of the stuff which a guidebook might cover), but that is not an issue with this article at all. --Doncram (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And about a couple sources that show up in Google Books search:

Author Steve Henry's coverage in "60 hikes within 60 miles St. Louis" book (Google book view allows me to see part but not all of coverage above Indian Camp Creek Park mentions regular equestrian rides run by the county, and describes a great hike, and is substantial, independent coverage, and there is no way that should be dismissed.
the guidebook by Vicki Berger Irwin and Justine Riggs, "Finally, A Locally Produced Guidebook to St. Charles, by and for Locals", is also independent and reliable in what it covers. It provides substantial coverage, including about the unique feature of the park having an observation tower in a silo that visitors can climb, and a historic homestead, and a historic cemetery (the Cannon Family Cemetery), as well as listing features such as the 18 hole disc golf course and much more. There is no reason to dismiss this source.

I have not checked the other sources in the article and/or Google Books but expect there are more valid sources that are guidebooks or other valid sources. --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @DiamondRemley39:, your current "!vote" (i.e. "not-vote", because an AFD is not a majority-vote process) shows as "Merge", and I urge you to change it back to "Keep" explicitly. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for looking into the sources and for all your contributions to the discussion, @Doncram:.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Keep" is better than "Merge" because there is too much material in article already and/or in available sources to comfortably merge to any potential target selected. For example there could be more development about the historic site info (the homestead and the cemetery and maybe the silo), which could include photos and discussion of the families/individuals involved, which would not obviously be appropriate for an article about the Indian Camp Creek alone. --Doncram (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2019 (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.