Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trimble Community Forest
- 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. postdlf (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trimble Community Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no reliable, third-party sources discussing this forest (under this name or "Trimble Township Community Forest"). Zero news archive or book its, only a few hundred web hits, including WP mirrors, affiliated sites, and calendar of event-type listings. I think the subject fails WP:N. Novaseminary (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. And I would not be upset if there was a common set of agreement that it should be removed. Part of what I do plan to add to the article, should it survive, is the extensive coal-mining history, ONCE I have documentation, for what it's worth. I AM very concerned about the concept of third-party noteworthiness. I am sure that I could dig up some historical fact from hundreds of years ago that appears in Wikipedia but that has not been mentioned in any scholarly (or popular) publication for many years, if I tried hard enough. So should such a thing be removed? When something exists in a large way -- like Highlands Sanctuary, which I very strongly feel should be included in Wikipedia (I mean, 5,000 acres in the heart of Ohio and steadily growing! -- the TNC component is another 12,000+ acres!), but doesn't seem to appear much in the news, and so is threatened for removal, I feel concern about whether Wikipedia really is being encyclopedic. However, that's not to say that the TCF is "newsworthy." jaknouse (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The idea would be to gather the sources first, then write the article based on the sources, not personal knowledge. That way WP:N and WP:V are satisfied all together. Since anyone can edit, that is the only way we have to ensure WP is and remains encyclopedic. Novaseminary (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did add a third-party reference. I will search the local newspaper archives to find more. jaknouse (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not clear that this source is unaffiliated or that it is even an RS. It looks like a press release. Novaseminary (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did add a third-party reference. I will search the local newspaper archives to find more. jaknouse (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The idea would be to gather the sources first, then write the article based on the sources, not personal knowledge. That way WP:N and WP:V are satisfied all together. Since anyone can edit, that is the only way we have to ensure WP is and remains encyclopedic. Novaseminary (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. And I would not be upset if there was a common set of agreement that it should be removed. Part of what I do plan to add to the article, should it survive, is the extensive coal-mining history, ONCE I have documentation, for what it's worth. I AM very concerned about the concept of third-party noteworthiness. I am sure that I could dig up some historical fact from hundreds of years ago that appears in Wikipedia but that has not been mentioned in any scholarly (or popular) publication for many years, if I tried hard enough. So should such a thing be removed? When something exists in a large way -- like Highlands Sanctuary, which I very strongly feel should be included in Wikipedia (I mean, 5,000 acres in the heart of Ohio and steadily growing! -- the TNC component is another 12,000+ acres!), but doesn't seem to appear much in the news, and so is threatened for removal, I feel concern about whether Wikipedia really is being encyclopedic. However, that's not to say that the TCF is "newsworthy." jaknouse (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Move to Trimble Township Community Forest While I see "Trimble Community Forest" in searches, I have yet to see any I'd consider reliable (including the map in the article). In fact, the "Trimble Community Forest" reference I used for the Coords seems to be in error pointing to a "Trimble Wilderness Area" Google place. I did not find this forest in GNIS, but a map from the state of Ohio (pub038.pdf) I am considering to be a quality independent reliable secondary source for the mapping and the name. WP:5 policy shows that Wikipedia is partly a gazetteer. So given verifiability in a quality map I think we only need a tad more reliable information to qualify as a gazetteer entry and provide something useful to readers and satisfy policy. Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure it is a real place. But even searching under the proper name, there still doesn't seem to be significant coverage ("sources address the subject directly in detail") in reliable third-party sources (as noted in the nom). Gazetteer entries still need to meet WP:N. If the article is kept, though, I certainly agree with the move proposal. Novaseminary (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)I think you are referring not to WP:N so much as WP:GNG. I'm still coming up to speed on this, but...I think that gazetteer entries do not need to meet WP:GNG for many reasons. (1) WP:N can be satisfied under the definition of notability "worthy of notice", to which WP:GNG is subserviant. (2) WP:Deletion policy (as is also indicated in WP:N) provides alternate guidelines to WP:N. One candidate is WP:Notability (geography), which is in limbo between being an essay and being a guideline. (3) WP:N is a guideline, so does not trump WP:5 which is fundamental principles. (4) The essay WP:OtherStuffExists notes that it is a valid argument to have consistency in the encyclopedia. There are tens of thousands of gazetteer entries in the encyclopedia. This is supported by WP:UCS which is a variation of WP:IAR which means that the rules are not to interfere with improving the encyclopedia.
- As a specific response, I believe that pub038 is significant in identifying the topic (source addresses the subject directly in detail) as would most good maps. However, I've noticed since my first post that the Ohio DNR donated money to this land, so there is an argument that they are not independent. See also, Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) and Wikipedia:Common outcomes#Geography and astronomy. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The project was funded by the Clean Ohio Conservation Fund, an open, competitive granting process that is based on a bond issue twice strongly approved by Ohio voters. In order to carry through on an acquisition project, the grantee must record and enforce appropriate deed restrictions. However, beyond that, the state has no direct role in the land or its administration. I deal with these on a daily basis. Oh, and the map in the article can be affirmed based on the GIS shapefiles provided by Athens County, Ohio government and made available to the public at this outlink: [1]. I am a professional map maker and it would be bizarre to suggest that I would make any map that is not as accurate as possible. You can view other maps at [2]. jaknouse (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This would be a better link for maps: http://www.athenstrails.org/maps/maps.shtml jaknouse (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The project was funded by the Clean Ohio Conservation Fund, an open, competitive granting process that is based on a bond issue twice strongly approved by Ohio voters. In order to carry through on an acquisition project, the grantee must record and enforce appropriate deed restrictions. However, beyond that, the state has no direct role in the land or its administration. I deal with these on a daily basis. Oh, and the map in the article can be affirmed based on the GIS shapefiles provided by Athens County, Ohio government and made available to the public at this outlink: [1]. I am a professional map maker and it would be bizarre to suggest that I would make any map that is not as accurate as possible. You can view other maps at [2]. jaknouse (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure it is a real place. But even searching under the proper name, there still doesn't seem to be significant coverage ("sources address the subject directly in detail") in reliable third-party sources (as noted in the nom). Gazetteer entries still need to meet WP:N. If the article is kept, though, I certainly agree with the move proposal. Novaseminary (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I talked with the President of Appalachia Ohio Alliance a couple of days ago, and he affirmed that the correct name is Trimble Township Community Forest, not Trimble Community Forest. jaknouse (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:GNG is one section within WP:N (click on GNG and then scroll up to verify). N/GNG is a guideline which is followed unless there is a very good reason to depart from it. The actual policy is really WP:V which states: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I wouldn't be suprised if RSs, especially guidebooks, etc., cover this preserve in the coming years. So, I wouldn't oppose userfying the article. When sources come to light, they can be added and the article recreated. V has more on the need for secondary sources (maps are generally primary sources) and the prohibition on original research, too. And I think WP:OTHERSTUFF cuts the other way. There are thousands of articles on places, but not on places not receiving coverage. Just as there are thousands of articles on people, but that doesn't mean there should be an article on every person. Novaseminary (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) If you will, take a look at an article I rewrote, Barber Island. I suspect that this article does not pass WP:GNG the way that you are reading it, yet it has a place in the encyclopedia. (2) I see the section in WP:V, but when you are looking at WP:V that is article content policy, see WP:NNC for more info. And compare with WP:Deletion policy, which also references WP:N. (3) Also, the sentence near the end of WP:GNG, "A topic for which <WP:GNG> is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia" (emphasis added). So even if WP:GNG is met, a topic might not satisfy the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice"; and so likewise, even if WP:GNG is not met, a topic may still satisfy the definition. (4) Then also in WP:N, there are the two sentences, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." So, WP:GNG+N is but one path to notability. WP:Deletion policy says the same thing.
- I'm not saying this is responsive to all of your point in relation to WP:V, but there has got to be more middle ground than we have now. Unscintillating (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of names for Barber Island is evidence that people consider the island to be "worthy of notice". Cartographers are in the business of documenting named geographic features so that we have independent reliable third-party secondary (one step removed) sources for these names. Unscintillating (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It meets the general notability guidelines as there is significant coverage in reliable sources. These two sources ([3],[4]) and the others available and cited in the article represent significant coverage in my opinion. They are about the subject, rather than simply mentioning it. Of course I might require a large number of non-local sources if I were judging the notability of, for example, Acme Web Marketing Company, but an article on a 1200 acre community forest goes towards fulfilling Wikipedia's function as a geographical directory. For this reason, as long the forest can be verified to exist, and there are sources that provide coverage about the subject, the article should be retained.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not opposed to WP "incorporat(ing) elements of ... gazetteers" of course. Though as you acknowledge, the subject must still meet N somehow. I disagree that the two sources you mentioned meet GNG. One is a few sentence blurb. The other (#3) is good, but that plus a blurb plus affiliated press releases and OR doesn't meet GNG in my opinion. If this meets it, many high school honors students listed in local papers a few times for getting honors and then profiled once in a local paper would meet WP:GNG. That (and this) doesn't seem to be the significant coverage GNG expects. Novaseminary (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2011 (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.