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.
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.
TigraanClick here to contact me15:18, 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
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.
Deryck 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.
TigraanClick here to contact me08:11, 20 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
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
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.
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.
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.
TigraanClick here to contact me15:18, 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
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.
Deryck 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.
TigraanClick here to contact me08:11, 20 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
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
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.