Talk:Mushroom Corner, Washington

The contents of the Mushroom Corner, Washington page were merged into Lacey, Washington on April 2024 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2024. The result of the discussion was merge.

This page was proposed for deletion by WeirdNAnnoyed (talk · contribs) on 31 March 2024.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Washington Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Washington.

As with Plumb, Washington and Union Mill, Washington, removing the 7-day uncontested PROD template.

By no means is this an attack on the original poster(s). The hard work generated thru the Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington/GNIS cleanup/State is admirable and flat-out impressive. As a born-and--raised Olympia/Thurston County gal, yes...there's plenty of not wanting to see some of my local history removed...but I think I can give a boots-on-the-ground perspective as well.

Here it comes - but - instead of deletion, I would ask for an open discussion, particularly for interests to rewrite the page (i.e. more like an extinct community, ghost town, neighborhood...) rather than removing this history. We can go more into that during an AfD, or preventing an AfD, conversation.

Again, raise the roof (more out of slang?) to User:WeirdNAnnoyed and User:James.folsom for undertaking this project. Shortiefourten (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Corner is just a neighborhood of Olympia and doesn't meet notability guidelines. Now, what I think you should do is move this to Ostrom Mushroom Farm or whatever is appropriate and write an article about the Ostrom company. It struck me that this subject could be notable. Otherwise, if you have sources that are not on google, offline books or such that establish the importance of this neighborhood, I'm fine with adding those to the article and moving on down this big list. James.folsom (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James!

I'll be responding at the AfD discussion page so we don't have two competing conversations going on. See you there!

Shortiefourten (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD opinion

Meany doesn't even list this place, so its likely 20th century. In fact the news reports say the mushroom farm has been growing mushrooms since the 1960s [1], so this has only had a name since then. Currently, this is just a residential area in Olympia Washington and these usually get deleted at AFD. The county considers this an election precinct and I could accept merging this to a list of election precincts in that county. The Mushroom farm is now probably apartments. The fire mentioned in the WP article is just routine life and pertains to the farm, and not the community. The local paper for Olympia doesn't mention mushroom corner until 1967, and going forward from then it has always been an election precinct and road intersection. This is just a neighborhood in Olympia.

This was correctly proposed for deletion, and the prod should not have been removed. If the remover cannot produce sources offline or otherwise this should go to AFD. James.folsom (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James!

Appreciate the tenacity of your work, however, a

WP:PROD

can be contested and removed at anytime by an objecting editor. I have two major purposes, as you'll see on other potential PRODs for Lewis and Thurston counties, is first, not removing knowledge of places that existed, and two, working collaboratively to find proper positions for these articles lacking notability enough to be on their own page.

All

WP:AGF

to you and no doubting the hard work under this GNIS cleanup! Just want to make sure there's a conversation first.

Shortiefourten (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't what you initially said. And you don't need anybody else's help to do this. You could have simply done a merger of the article when you removed the prod, if you didn't have time you could have just left a note in the edit comment that you were going to take care of merging it. You could have even replaced the PROD with a merge proposal. Nobody else involved with this would have cared if that was what you said you were going to do. It's on you to take care of the things you care about. But there is a good chance that after you do this somebody else comes along and then removes it or otherwise objects. James.folsom (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Confused a bit as I've stood by these exact same reasons for not going the PROD route, but, now you know.

I'm a firm believer in consensus, although I can't stand the

WP:BRD

loopholes. To assume someone else wouldn't care if I went ahead and merged is, well, kinda hard to see. You and Weird seem to both want it deleted via PROD...so I'm outnumbered. For me to assume that neither of you, much less anybody else wouldn't care is an assumption gene I just don't have and I don't think works well on Wiki anyways. Based on experiences and observations as an editor, that road leads to more arguments and ANI garbage and less collaboration, i.e. I can do what I want, who cares about others. If I straight up removed the PRODS and went with Merging, I would be going against the flow, denying consensus, doing whatever I want. Hell, I'd even be denying you and I both a voice to stand up for or against the article. When it comes to an article being deleted, that doesn't sit right with me to do whatever I want.

If it's deleted and merge denied, then that's the voice. I have no issue with the process, just the outcome. I don't have it in me to do what I want regardless of what others want. I stand by not wanting this info to be lost, but my voice is singular.

It is on me to take of the things I care about. That's why I'm opening these conversations and why I make sure to pretend I'm interested in baseball when my husband starts talking.

Shortiefourten (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your pain. And, clearly you have a firm grasp on how Wikipedia works. I don't like the way it works either, but it's not upto us. My problem with your argument here is that you claim you are uncomfortable with being BOLD, but your actions are exactly that. Your insisting that other people should just do what you want. But, I don't think you realize your doing it, which is the only reason I'm still talking to you.

"Me and Weird" and many others, are only trying to get rid of articles that are either lies because they were constructed from unreliable sources, or are otherwise not notable. Notability is a requirement of all stand alone articles here, BTW. And As I explained in my other response, getting things deleted isn't as easy you think it is, and there is an enormous amount of scrutiny on the process. James.folsom (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]