Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henderson Park (Chehalis, Washington) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Henderson Park (Chehalis, Washington)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A small-town local park with no significant coverage outside its immediate area, failing GNG and GEOLAND.  Sounder Bruce  07:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  Sounder  Bruce  07:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has changed since the last "no consensus" AfD by the same nominator earlier this year. I don't see how stuffing the sourced content here into Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington would benefit Wikipedia. Nominator has also nominated some other parks in the area. Garuda3 (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are tens of thousands of parks like this in every small town in the United States. Do all of them need articles? Merging them into a listicle would be easier to manage and the loss of useful content would be minimal.  Sounder Bruce  08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep GNG appears met, GEOLAND does not apply. Well sourced for what it is, no clear rationale for deletion has been articulated. That is, would Wikipedia be better off without this article? I see no reason at all why it would. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not meet GNG, as there is only one independent source being cited (The Chronicle) with only two sources that provide significant coverage (criteria 2). As Wikipedia is not a directory, we should be pruning entries like this.  Sounder Bruce  08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The 1916, 1961, and 2018 articles constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, such that the topic meets WP:GNG. Coverage outside its immediate area is required only for companies, organizations, products, and services, not for places of local interest. Meeting GNG doesn't necessarily mean the topic should have a stand-alone article, but no other rationale for deletion has been put forward. An alternative to deletion would be a merge to Parks and recreation in Chehalis, Washington. But as they stand now, the articles are well sourced, well written, and well structured. I don't see an advantage to merging this one out of existence. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A merge would be acceptable. There's no reason to have standalone articles on every park in a town of under 10,000 people.  Sounder Bruce  08:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I vote keep per GNG. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.