Talk:Home of the Good Shepherd

notability
Here we go again. I do not understand why this keeps coming up all over Wikipedia. Every single last park in the world, not matter how small, should have an associated article. Wikipedia is not paper. . . we won't run out of space. --Thorwald (talk) 01:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Subjects must demonstrate notability to be included. See WP:Notability. You may feel that every tiny park on earth deserves a WP article, but WP has policies dictating what subjects deserve articles. Tomdobb (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No. These policies are not "dictates", these are guidelines. I understand that articles about people, websites, companies, software, etc. should be notable before included, but when the article is about a geographical location, it is inherently "notable". The people who live in this area of Seattle would certainly find it notable and would be interested in learning more about it. That is, after all, what Wikipedia is all about: Providing information to its users. Again, Wikipedia is not paper. It certainly doesn't hurt Wikipedia to include articles about every geographical location on earth. Indeed, it almost necessarily improves Wikipedia. The article should stay. --Thorwald (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously that's all pretty debatable. Just because something is notable in one city, doesn't mean its notable to everyone and there's nothing here that even establishes as particularly notable in Seattle. The whole argument is pretty silly though, since no one ever said the article should go. Only that it should provide more sources to establish notability. Tomdobb (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing my point. There is no guideline anywhere on Wikipedia that states an article should be notable to everyone on the planet. That would be silly. Obviously, this park would probably only (but not necessarily) be of interest to someone living in Seattle (and not even everywhere in Seattle, just this neighbourhood) and, thereby, be inherently notable to this user. But again, my main point has nothing to do with notability (although I started this discussion because of the "notability" tag). I am arguing that Wikipedia should keep to its original goal and purpose: Providing an exhaustive source of information about our world and knowledge. As for providing sources, I will see what I can find, but I think these sources would only be to verify it size (6.5 acres) and history, etc., but not its notability. Again, its notability is inherent in it being a geographical location. --Thorwald (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This really isn't the place to soapbox about your perception of WP's purpose. And the inherent notability of places is your opinion. It's certainly not any sort of policy on WP. Tomdobb (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever, dude. I am not making a speech; I am trying to improve this article (and all articles on Wikipedia). Also, it is not my "perception" of WP's purpose; it was stated when the project was launched in 2001 (look it up). I don't really care about this article; I care about the policies. These policies are not sent-from-above; we, the editors, choose them after a consensus is reached (after a debate, which is what I am doing here). Again, they are not rules; they are guidelines. I have been editing articles on Wikipedia for over five years . . . I know what a soapbox "discussion" is and this is not one of them. PS: Actually, yes, the inherent nature of geographical places is a WP policy of sorts and we have been debating it for years. See the Inherent notability essay for a good overview. --Thorwald (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That may have been the purpose at launch, but that doesn't mean it continues to be WP's purpose. You should know that policies and consensus change over time. You may feel like debating policy with me, but I'm really not interested and we're not establishing any consensus here. We're just spinning wheels. The essay you link to is just that.. an essay. It's not a policy at all. Not even sort of. And even if it was, parks are not among the items it lists as having de facto notability anyway. All you're doing is saying over and over that you think notability is inherent. I disagree, but the point is moot anyway. This is a waste of my time. I will no longer participate in this discussion. Happy editing. Tomdobb (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is a waste of my time as well. All the best. --Thorwald (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability part two
Based on recent edits, it seems like the Good Shepherd Center is the notable location and that this playground just happens to be in its proximity. If this is the case, the article should probably be rewritten and renamed to reflect the actual notable subject. Tomdobb (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a notable park. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Thanks for the detailed response. Another more helpful editor addressed the issues I had. Tomdobb (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

sigh.... are you familiar with the concept of a mansion and it's grounds/gardens??? Why would you even think to treat them as separate? So why would you consider this to be separate, especially since the perimeter of the grounds (about 6 acres) is surrounded by a large stone wall. It is all one unit. Once it was turned into a community center a number of changes were made, such as a modern play area for children, but it is all part of the same location. And since it was originally used for unwed mothers it is highly likely that a playground of some sort has always been part of the facility. Dear Tomdobb me thinks you troll much... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.97.69 (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

more history needed
The church tried for many years to sell it, but nobody could figure out what to do with it. When they failed to sell it they finally made a deal with the city but I don't know the details, I just remember it being on the market for many years before it was announced that it was being turned into a community center. What I do know is that "wayward girls" is a euphemism for unwed mothers to be. It was a place for girls who had gotten pregnant but had nowhere to go, to live during pregnancy. It would be great if someone could dig up some more info about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.97.69 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

While the term "wayward girls" may have been used to describe the institution, it would make sense to have a more descriptive and neutral term. Avocats (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)