Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howell Park Uptown Dallas

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 Move. to J. M. Howell. I appreciate Xymmax's concern, but a confused history is not a valid deletion rationale. SpinningSpark 23:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howell Park Uptown Dallas

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

Previously nominated for deletion as non-notable as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howell Park, Uptown. More sources are present, but as AfD was active when I accepted, I'll raise this for AfD again. (@AMLNet49 and Bearian:) --Mdann52talk to me! 16:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howell Park is the most well documented historic district in Dallas. I have provided historic reference points over the course of more than 100 years via the sources I've cited. Howellparkuptown (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This looks like a good start to a biography of J. M. Howell, but doesn't appear to say anythign about the neighborhood. Suggest the page be moved to J. M. Howell. If Howell Park is truely "the most well documented historic district in Dallas" it shouldn't be hard to find some references about the district itself. As near as I can tell, it isn't even designated a Landmark District by the city, unlike nearby State Thomas, Dallas, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article describes Howell Park's location, history, ties to the development of the City of Dallas and includes references to the 100+ year old trees that were planted by Howell and still present today. The area is designated the Howell tract by Dallas County, a formal legal description which is a reflection of the long standing recognition of Howell Park. (Dallas Central Appraisal District) State Thomas is a Landmark District where all the "landmarks" have been torn down and replaced with apartments, hardly a fair comparison though it has made for good marketing. You will not find historic references to "State Thomas" as it didn't exist prior to the real estate development of the 1990's. However, the references provided show period maps depicting Howell's original settlement of the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howellparkuptown (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand the point. Every reference you have provided is about Mr. Howell. This is, in theory, an article about a location not a person. The references go towards establishing the notability of the person, but do nothing to establish the notability of the place. That the area is legally defined is hardly proof of its notability. If there is nothing else to say about the area other than its boundary and that it is named after Mr. Howell (who once planted a tree there), there is no reason for a standalone article. Those two sentences can easily be covered in the Uptown article. That said, you haven't even provided a reference to show the area "is designated the Howell tract by Dallas County, a formal legal description". If you have one, please provide it, as it would help determine of the area does indeed have notability.

Everything else you wrote is about State Thomas, and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to J. M. Howell per the suggestion of ThaddeusB. However, the article will need some serious improvement to avoid deletion altogether (which would be my second choice). Primefac (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Repurpose as an article on Howell., as suggested above. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to using these references to restart an article on Howell. While I appreciate the effort that has been put into this article, the edit history would only be confusing in a biography; I think a clean start is more appropriate.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:04, 31 December 2014 (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.