Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:59, 28 May 2014

Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska

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

I merged this newly-created list into Community gardens in Nebraska, but it has been recreated by its creator as a stand-alone article. There is insufficient content to justify two articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Change to List - Seems to me that this article might survive as something like List of community gardens in Portland, Oregon. Seems so trivial though, and I'm having trouble seeing the references. Deletion wouldn't be bad either. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it was just started. The Portland list has been referenced as a model already, at Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska. Notability of a list has already been established by discussion and references provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden. Give it some time here. --doncram 22:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Portland list isn't a good example of how this should progress: two years after it was started, one entry is sourced to Facebook, another to a dead link on a site probably associated with the garden, and the rest to one source, a directory, and there's no lead section or any prose outside of the list entries. Peter James (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anything, that AfD decided that the list should be at Community gardens in Nebraska. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Pigsonthewing, in fact, that is NOT what was "decided" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dundee Community Garden. You can still clearly see that there are two comments there for Merge; one for Nebraska, and the second one for Omaha, which also highlighted that the list does not contain a single garden in Nebraska that isn't in Omaha. And, the second one is actually from the same User: Ammodramus who, one hour after suggesting the Nebraska list, changed their position to support the Omaha list. You seem to have a habit of just saying that things happen or are decided in these discussions that back up what your opinion, rather than what actually occurs. There was no poll that tabulated all the votes in that discussion. That AfD didn't "decide" anything so clearly as you try to make it sound. If you think that the List for Nebraska should superseded the List for Omaha, please, in one of these discussions somewhere, give a reason. And preferably, make edits to the appropriate article with references. ScottHW (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The closing admin's statement, in full was: "The result was merge to Community gardens in Nebraska". Note that it was not "The result was merge to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska". Your allegation of "just saying that things happen or are decided in these discussions that back up what your opinion, rather than what actually occurs" is a baseless and unacceptable slur, which you should retract. As I've said to you elsewhere (and as people can decide here, if they wish), feel free to propose moving Community gardens in Nebraska to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska. There is still no need for two articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I described in detail on the Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska page, merging a list of Omaha gardens into a Nebraska gardens entirely misses the point of Community gardening. Omaha has a vibrant group of community gardens which are interrelated and work together e.g. Tour de Gardens bike tour. A list of other gardens hundreds of miles away doesn't contribute to encyclopedic knowledge in any way, and obscures the significance of a community in community gardening. In response to User:Pigsonthewing's comment "insufficient content to justify two articles", the article that should be kept is the one that is actively being developed by a number of editors, the article about community gardening in Omaha. At no time has any editing whatsoever been done to a list of garden across the entire state, other than the creation of the page in response to the AfD discussion of the now-defunct Dundee Community Garden article. - - - ScottHW (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC) - - -[reply]
- Those editors can just as easily work at Community gardens in Nebraska. The community that purportedly exists in Omaha is of no consequence here; it's not Wikipedia's job to foster or promote that; and we can describe it just as well in the more widely-focussed article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Pigsonthewing By your logic that a "more widely-focused article" is the best decision, why not have a List of Community gardens in the United States of America, or a List of Community gardens on Earth for that matter. I, along with several other editors, have consistently stated that we will write a coherent article about community gardens in Omaha, about the community of community gardens in Omaha. You have still, in any of these discussions, not provided any reason whatsoever that a broader article would have any benefits over a more focused article. ScottHW (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Community gardens in Nebraska. Article is nothing but a chart. Doesn't matter how many people care deeply about it, WP:GNG is the guideline here. Community gardening is great and all that but seriously? Two lists? Naah. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Call for immediate administrative closure. There's no need for AFD attention. A proposal to merge was previously opened, and is ongoing, at Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska#Merger proposal. It was proposed by User:Gilliam in this notice calling for discussion and linking to where the discussion should happen. The current AFD nominator since removed the notice, and has since also commented at the discussion. This was all discussed also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pigsonthewing reported by Doncram (Result: Both blocked for 48 hours). The current AFD nominator was participating in the 3RR discussion at 18:06, and opened this AFD at 18:54, before being blocked. He was unblocked on basis that he "promised not to engage in further disruption," but had opened this AFD already. This AFD should just be closed.
Seriously, there is no need for far-away editors to apply attention here, it is just extending dramah. Let the editor(s) developing content on community gardens do what they want to do, and they will make sensible decision to merge in due time, if there is not sufficiently different material for two lists. If anyone wants to butt in, do contribute to the article, and/or comment at the ongoing merger proposal, a less confrontational medium than AFD. Assume good faith and some competence on the part of the productive editor(s). --doncram 22:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And you were the other blocked editor. If you wish to assert that this AfD is disruptive, take the matter to ANI; otherwise you should strike your false allegations here. And do explain the significance and meaning of "far-away editors". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "False allegations"? And you surmise something untoward from my use of "faraway" term? Not faraway = editor ScottHW, who I perceive to be local, and Ammodramus who takes pics in Nebraska and offers at ScottHW't talk along those lines, and anyone else with balance of relevant local knowledge, interest, access to news sources that faraway editors don't have as easily. Faraway = everyone else, including me. Let's not personally battle; I don't expect to comment more here. --doncram 00:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, Doncram, "false allegations", because you clearly can't substantiate them. And from your further comments, about "far-away editors" I now surmise that you believe that this matter only "needs" to be discussed by those who are geographically local to its subject. Wikipedia has a number of policies about that, not east WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:doncram is correct, I do live in Omaha. I have been to the community gardens I write about, many times. And I have used the "primary daily newspaper of Nebraska" as a reference. "Far-away" are editors like User:Pigsonthewing, who, from literally the other side of the planet, state that the newspaper is not "Reliable", and/or is not sufficient to connote "Notability". We can't all live in Manhattan and have The New Yorker write about the subjects of articles we are trying to write. But after 129 years, the Omaha World Herald is qualified to verify facts like what year a community garden was founded. If you feel otherwise, you should give real justification, rather than just hurl belittling comments across the ocean. You're entitled to your Opinion about whether the List of Community Gardens should be drawn from the Omaha community, or from across all of Nebraska. But for Merge/Delete decisions, you're going to need to demonstrate more than your Opinion. ScottHW (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Please provide a citation for me saying that a newspaper is not reliable in this issue; or retract that statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, it's a new article that's still being edited and not obviously inappropriate or of a type usually deleted. Discussion can continue on the talk page(s). Peter James (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be a new article, but it's an unnecessary one, when we already have Community gardens in Nebraska. Why does that not suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article Community gardens in Nebraska only exists as a response to a suggestion from the AfD discussion about Dundee Community Garden. It was created, with no content, at approximately the same time as I created the more appropriate Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, which actually represents a "community" of gardens. Every bit of the content on the Nebraska article was poached from the already-merged Dundee Community Garden article, and from the description (with sources), and the List, that I I put into the Omaha article, User:Pigsonthewing, I don't get what your deal is with this whole string of discussions, Deleting and Merging the articles that editors are actively trying to develop. If you don't want overlapping articles, then just allow the Nebraska article to be closed; no one wrote ANY content for it. I am actively developing the Omaha list, why should that one be the one to be closed?? ScottHW (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, both articles were created recently, and in short space of time. That is not in dispute. However, we only need - if we need any - one. As for your allegation of "poaching", perhaps you ought to re-read the licence terms which you and everyone else agrees to when uploading content to Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Community gardens in Nebraska. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support merging that article to Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska (or at least moving it if they are merged as you propose), only because the creator and main editor of Community gardens in Nebraska has been blocked as a sockpuppet, also as all content is specific to Omaha. Obviously "Community gardens in Nebraska" wouldn't be a suitable redirect and would have to be moved to a more suitable redirect title such as "Community gardens in Omaha". Peter James (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Community gardens in Nebraska has multiple authors, so the original creator being a sock is not an issue here. And if that article is moved or merged, then of course the current name should be kept as a redirect. Others might be created, but we're not limited to just one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Nebraska" alone would be misleading for an article limited to Omaha, so a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. Editors more involved in that part of the encyclopedia appear to prefer the Omaha article. Peter James (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *'''Keep'''  As I described in detail on the [[Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska]] page, merging a list of Omaha gardens into a Nebraska gardens entirely misses the point of '''Community''' gardening.  Omaha has a vibrant group of community gardens which are interrelated and work together e.g. Tour de Gardens bike tour.  A list of other gardens hundreds of miles away doesn't contribute to encyclopedic knowledge in any way, and obscures the significance of a community in community gardening.  In response to [[User:Pigsonthewing]]'s comment "insufficient content to justify two articles", the article that should be kept is the one that is actively being developed by a number of editors, the article about community gardening in Omaha.  At no time has any editing whatsoever been done to a list of garden across the entire state, other than the creation of the page in response to the AfD discussion of the now-defunct [[Dundee Community Garden]] article. - - - [[User:ScottHW|ScottHW]] ([[User talk:ScottHW|talk]]) 20:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC) - - -
 **Those editors can just as easily work at [[Community gardens in Nebraska]]. The community that purportedly exists in Omaha is of no consequence here; it's not Wikipedia's job to foster or promote that; and we can describe it just as well in the more widely-focussed article. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 23:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
+***[[User:Pigsonthewing]] By your logic that a "more widely-focused article" is the best decision, why not have a [[List of Community gardens in the United States of America]], or a [[List of Community gardens on Earth]] for that matter.  I, along with several other editors, have consistently stated that we will write a coherent article about community gardens in Omaha, about the community of community gardens in Omaha.  You have still, in any of these discussions, '''not provided any reason whatsoever''' that a broader article would have any benefits over a more focused article. [[User:ScottHW|ScottHW]] ([[User talk:ScottHW|talk]]) 15:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' or '''Merge''' with [[Community gardens in Nebraska]]. Article is nothing but a chart.  Doesn't matter how many people care deeply about it, WP:GNG is the guideline here.  Community gardening is great and all that but seriously?  Two lists?  Naah.  [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|<font color="purple">(talk)</font>]]</sup> 20:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''', and '''Call for immediate administrative closure'''.  There's no need for AFD attention.  A proposal to merge was previously opened, and is ongoing, at [[Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska#Merger proposal]].  It was proposed by [[User:Gilliam]] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_gardens_in_Nebraska&diff=610311123&oldid=610142418 this notice calling for discussion and linking to where the discussion should happen].  The current AFD nominator since removed the notice, and has since also commented at the discussion.  This was all discussed also at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pigsonthewing reported by Doncram (Result: Both blocked for 48 hours)]].  The current AFD nominator was participating in the 3RR discussion at 18:06, and opened this AFD at 18:54, before being blocked.  He was unblocked on basis that he "promised not to engage in further disruption," but had opened this AFD already.  This AFD should just be closed.<br />Seriously, there is no need for far-away editors to apply attention here, it is just extending dramah.  Let the editor(s) developing content on community gardens do what they want to do, and they will make sensible decision to merge in due time, if there is not sufficiently different material for two lists.  If anyone wants to butt in, do contribute to the article, and/or comment at the ongoing merger proposal, a less confrontational medium than AFD.  Assume good faith and some competence on the part of the productive editor(s). --[[User:doncram|<font color="maroon">do</font>]][[User talk:Doncram|<font color="green">ncr</font>]][[Special:Contributions/doncram|<font color="maroon">am</font>]] 22:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)