Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kit Carson Park (Escondido, California)

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. Note: article was moved during the AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Carson Park (Escondido, California)

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

This is about a public park in Escondido - so it's not something I've seen pop up in AFD before. (I could have missed previous discussions, but I digress.) While civic pride in a local landmark is a good thing, we need to see why this park is notable - which I'm not seeing in here. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a large notable park with all kinds of different facilities in it, and it makes the news a lot. I have added half a dozen references to the article and more could be added. ~~My one thought about this article is that there should not be a separate article for its sculpture garden, Queen Califias Magic Circle; I would like to see that article merged into this one.~~ --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion about the sculpture garden, based on comments here and on noticing that the sculpture garden has been the subject of ongoing reportage, not just news stories when it opened. --MelanieN (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge (not delete) to Escondido, California. This is not a neighborhood pocket park, but a 285-acre regional park with a wide variety of amenities including a notable sculpture garden. It gets more than 6,000 hits at GNews and is described as "the city's recreation hub"[1]. So, at minimum, a chunk of this content is worthy of inclusion at the main city article, where the mention of the park currently mentions only the sculpture garden. Given all those sources, the question may eventually arise whether there is enough content to justify a spinoff article. (With regard to Melanie's comment, I'm inclined to think the sculpture garden is notable on its own as a major work of a notable artist, but that doesn't mean it has to have a separate article.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator please note: since being nominated, the article has been moved from Kit Carson Park (Escondido, California) to Kit Carson Park. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's a correct application of Wikiprocedure, but for clarity and for any further searchers, perhaps I should mention here that there's also a well-known Kit Carson Park (formerly a state park, and incorporating a historic cemetery where the real Kit Carson is buried) in Taos, New Mexico.[2][3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article can be moved after an article is created on the other Kit Carson Park. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments from Arxiloxos (above) and EdWitt (below), I would favor returning the article to its original title. Just because there aren't currently Wikipedia articles about the other Kit Carson Parks, doesn't remove the need for clarifying which Kit Carson Park this article is about IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course I would say that as I wrote the original article. It is an important park in San Diego. For example, during the 2007 wildfires the command post was set up in Kit Carson Park, it's that important. By the way, the reason I named the article Kit Carson Park (Escondido, California) versus simply Kit Carson Park was because a wiki search of Kit Carson Park yielded six or seven other parks with the same name in different states. WRT the scupture garden in the park (Queen Califias Magic Circle), that's Niki de Saint Phalle's magnum opus. If you want to take that article down, then you should also remove all the articles for her other works, as well as her bio. EdWitt (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed, this discussion is not about Ms. de Saint Phalle's article or her works, it is about Kit Carson Park. Also, WP:ALLORNOTHING - it's about the individual merit of the park, not the merit of the park because of being used as a command post for wildfires. We need have some reliable and verifiable information on why this park is notable by our standards. That's what we are seeking for every article on Wikipedia. The best advice I can give is this: don't spend time arguing your points, spend time fixing the article. Change our minds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Appologies Tiger, I wasn't familiar with the protocol on these matters. EdWitt (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dennis, have you LOOKED at the article lately? I have been doing exactly what you urge EdWitt to do - adding references with significant coverage from reliable sources. The article now has a dozen references from multiple sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have not, Melanie. But since you mention it, there is quite a bit of work done on it that fixes the issues at hand. Come to think of it, you mentioned it earlier in the discussion. =^_^= Anyone opposed to a withdrawal? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe we should resolve the issue of what to call it first? --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Given this, and the discussion herein, I'm all for keeping the current article name that it's been moved to. I figure that, if other identically named parks come about to being so notable, well, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm OK with that. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to meet WP:GNG, is large (285 acre) park with notable attractions (and noted in guidebooks), not out of place in the coverage we have created in Category:Municipal parks in California (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silverado Park, Long Beach, California). Small neigborhood parks are usually deleted, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Hearing Park (Hearing Park), but this isn't one of those.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; Wow! Although I have not thoroughly reviewed each and every entry there are over 5K mentions of the subject of this AfD in news articles, and over 600 mentions of the subject in books. Now I don't know if any of these are singularly "significant" however per WP:GNG: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." With these multiple mentions one could argue (and this is my opinion about this particular subject) that all these mentions can add up to significant coverage required by GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2012 (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.