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. Sandstein 06:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Stephen Juba Park (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Appears to be a WP:MILL local park; nothing noteworthy. Searching turns up little (there is one article about a plaque there). Not enough independent coverage to meet GNG. MB 16:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. MB 16:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, given the fact that there seems to be a historical marker at the park and it is included in the list of notable historical sites in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The park seems to have existed since 1980s. There is recent news coverage mentioning various events held at the park (protests, memorials, art installations etc) [1], [2], [3], [4] as well as some news about some development in 2001. It seems to be plausible that there would be offline coverage. Usually parks used for events are not run of the mill ones, but the more significant ones.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 02:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - WP:NGEO doesn't specifically mention parks, but I suppose it would fall under WP:GEOFEAT, Artificial geographical features - the guideline says that artificial geographical features are presumed to be notable if they have been officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level - while the park has a Manitoba Heritage Council plaque recognizing the Winnipeg Aqueduct, the park itself does not have national heritage protected status - there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources that deal with the park itself, more about events that took place in Winnipeg - perhaps the article could be Merged with Winnipeg, adding information about the memorial garden which is quite moving - Epinoia ( talk) 01:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• edit conflict Keep I've added some sources. I think there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG as well - this isn't ever going to be a featured article, but there's enough written on it for an article (even Readers' Digest Canada has a blurb [5]). SportingFlyer T· C 04:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Possible keep -- I would not favour merging to Winnipeg as that is already a large article. Instead a phrase (with link) should be added to Winnipeg#Cityscape. Parks are visitor attractions and can be significant enough to need their own article, but I am not qualified to judge in this case. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Parks can certainly be notable if they're reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but are not automatically deemed "inherently" notable just because they exist — but two of the five footnotes here are primary source content from the city's own self-published website, which are not notability-supporting sources; one is just a brief profile on the self-published website of the Manitoba Historical Society, calling it a historic site but failing to verify that it has any formal legal designation as such; one glancingly mentions the park's existence in a case study on the architectural redevelopment of a large neighbourhood, but is not about the park; and the only one that is about the park in any non-trivial way is not enough to hand it an instant GNG pass all by itself if it's the only substantive reliable source in play. City parks need more than just being technically verifiable as existing. Bearcat ( talk) 18:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• The park has been discussed by the Winnipeg Free Press since the 80's which isn't currently in the article, a simple archive search brings up over 2,000 mentions, for instance [6]. It's not as if it's a minor park on a square block, it's a decently important park in a mid-sized city. Even if the article doesn't currently pass WP:GNG (which I think it does), the park certainly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 07:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Sure, but even in newspapers there's still a difference between "notability-supporting articles about the park" and "articles which glancingly mention the park in the process of being fundamentally about something else". So we have to actually see some of those new sources added to the article, so that we can evaluate what difference they do or don't make, before they change anything. Bearcat ( talk) 18:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Per WP:ARTN, an article's notability has nothing to do with the sources presented in the article, though. The local paper, which currently isn't a source in this article, has plenty of coverage of the park, nor does the article have to be specifically about the park as long as the coverage of the park in the article is significant. SportingFlyer T· C 20:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

You haven't demonstrated there is significant coverage, you just assume there is because a search brought up 2,000 mentions. The one you linked is behind a paywall, so I can't evaluated it. I did my own search in Newspapers.com, which must not include the Winnipeg Free Press, and I found just one hit in the Calgary Herald which only talked about the design of a boutique "in Stephen Juba Park". This is not significant, and not even correct as the hotel is not actually within the park but adjacent to it. But it demonstrates how hits alone to not correlate to sig coverage. MB 21:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I've linked to an additional article which I believe is WP:SIGCOV from reading the OCR. The archives at the Free Press are freely searchable even if the articles are paywalled. See also [7] and [8]. Should clearly meet WP:GNG if historical articles are added. SportingFlyer T· C 22:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Your links are to archives which require a subscription. All I can see is a image of the entire page and can't ready any of the actual text. As far as the archive search which you linked, it indeed shows over 2000 hits but that is if searching for the words "Stephen" "Juba" and "Park". If you use the advanced search on the exact phrase "Stephen Juba Park", there are 187 hits with a lot in classified ads. Again, I can't read the actual articles to see if any of these are more than passing mentions. MB 23:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Articles requiring a subscription can still qualify for WP:GNG. I've identified three potential ones above. Also, the text in the archives is OCR'd, which has an imperfect level of accuracy. SportingFlyer T· C 00:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

But someone with accesss would have to evalate any potential sources. All you have are "potential" sources which could in fact say very little. That is not enough to establish notability. MB 00:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I've added two of the sources I found to the article. You can read the text on the website using the OCR function at the bottom of the page. Clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 06:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Found this [9]. Not sure if WP:PRIMARY or not. Currently I am undecided, because the coverage seems extremely local, and only the Winnipeg Free Press ones (for WP:GNG purposes, they all count just as a one source as "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.") so I am leaning to Delete. A lot of the coverage found is about the events in the park, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG. The park appears to be covered regularly in the Press, as it is host to major community events, concerts, artwork, historical monuments, plaques, festivals, etc. Here are more sources that could be used to source info about things in the park: [ [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], The park is also used as a scene in this novel, [15]. 4meter4 ( talk) 16:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

We're looking for coverage about the park as a park, not coverage about things that glancingly mentions the existence of the park. Bearcat ( talk) 17:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your assertion that it isn't coverage. Several of The articles are about the creation of amenities that are essentially part of the park, and therefore about the park. The monuments and historical plaques are just as much a part of the park as the grass and trees, and give people a reason to visit and be at the park. Likewise, the events (such as festivals) that occur at the park are part of the history and fulfillment of the purpose of the park. How can you write about a park without discussing the events that happen there, the reasons people vist there, and the things that there are to do there? You can't. I agree with DreamLinker that the newspaper regularly covers content about this park and the events in it, and that it's highly likely said newspapers have articles about the park's formation if people have access to those sources which are currently behind a pay wall. 4meter4 ( talk) 20:50, 27 September 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.