Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The cleaning up and building of SJI Park

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. MBisanz talk 01:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cleaning up and building of SJI Park

The cleaning up and building of SJI Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Subjective article. Delete per

WP:SOAP.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
Huntley 06:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

* Do not Delete this is not entirely promotional unless you are talking about promoting the Open Space through its development and history, It can not be helped that through is development the outcome resulted in a timeline through picture and song over a five year period of this and other open space parks in Linwood. that does not even touch the "Naive Music issue". Is it not notable that a citizen in a community take a football field size unusable overgrown trashed and toxic industrial sight and builds it into a Natural Park over a extended time period and the art, song , culture and history created because of it. The pictures dont lie , the music and the videos don't lie, they speak for themselves, you have to look deeper than the surface to see this history in its entirety. i cannot separate myself from that history, there has to be a starting point. The city of Linwood hauled away all the debris over the past five years, but no group did the actual work if you take me out of the picture you loss the history the Art and culture, you should alow this to develope so third parties that have some knolage of the subject "SJI Open Space" can add to itKevin Lajiness (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lajiness, since February several editors have taken pains to explain Wikipedia to you; a subject is not notable because you insist it is, it's notable only if supported by reliable sources, per
    WP:RELIABLE. Not choosing to understand this, and instead using the site to write about your personal experiences, forecasts a limited involvement here. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Possibly the park and its creation are notable and the article could be rewritten with reliable sources, but as is the article is an autobiography (see author's comments here) it should be deleted for lacking notability. The sources for the author's notability are nonexistent, and the sources for the park are self-published. Meters (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asking to give me time to develop a consensus because the editors fail to recognize logic, the pictures don't Lie, I've been sighted for not having reliable sources on a Samuel Powell/Powel but you failed to recognize the genealogy and the fact that I was a relative, in this case all one has to do is Look on a map and see that this is listed as a property, but the city on it own web site and the residence have come to the conclusion that it is a Park now. I don't know how you can say this is not notable, this is a five year history of the park, some events have been published by the Local media , i have included at lest one link so far, there are other maps and historical documents that can support my claims but i cant fabricate the pictures, I have kept very good records because I have a timeline on my blogs but you dismiss them out of hand Like you did with my William Powell blog, that has the most complete genealogical relationship record to show the possible parentage of Samuel Powell Mayer of Philadelphia during the revolution,regardless of the Building of the park and the interactions with the wildlife that are documented, you think nothing of dismissing the tens of Natural Video that show a pictorial history of the open spaces for five year, but there is so much you are willing to take out because your criticism blinds you to something valuable, that is not trash, that you cannot see beyond your nosesKevin Lajiness (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC) ITake back the emotionalismKevin Lajiness (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's futile to continue explaining encyclopedic guidelines if a user has no intention of reading, let alone following, them. The link to the local media that I'm guessing you referred to [2] doesn't establish the park's notability, but it does raise the possibility that Mr. Lajiness is himself notable. It's clear, however, that he ought not be the one to write that article. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No what part of give me time to build a consensus don't you understand,that is why I included that link , I was not writen by me, but that is not one of the links i was talking about this is just one http://www.linwoodcity.org/mainpages/recreation.asp from the cities own web sightKevin Lajiness (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen if someone could right the Article without my input it would not be factual, because I am the only one that knows all the facts and you can separate me from them but if someone could do that, go for it, i am not a writer obviously — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Lajiness (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First we have to reach a consensus not to delete the article, and that does not look likely so far. Is the article about you, or is it about the park? There's no point discussing the notability of the park if this article is a biography. Meters (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no doubt the park, but the Park resulted in the creation of works that reflect The Naturalist that did the work, how do you separate the two unless you just refer to him as "The NaturalistKevin Lajiness (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this article a biography, as you said here? Meters (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This probably fine material for somebody's personal blog, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. There is no coverage in reliable sources of this cleanup. "...because I am the only one that knows all the facts..." Pretty much indicates that we are going to fail
    verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I changed it, did i take all the referances to me out, and no i am not the only one that knows facts abot this , i am the only one that knows all the facts about it and that is just me bloviatingKevin Lajiness (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite time given to deal with other editors' objections, it's still an unencyclopedic mess suitable for a blog, but not for Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
its a shame,If it comes down to my references (Pictures) Its a shame cause a pictures worth a thousand words, the artical stands on its own with the referances i put in. so I blog it, regardless if you take the pictures out and the one video you loose the color and for me that wont do.so shoot away.Kevin Lajiness (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to establishing notability, pictures are not references. I could take a picture of my foot and claim that since there's a picture of my foot in existence my foot is notable and worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Of course, my foot is a foot like any other. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
your ridiculous argument see's only black and white, My pictures obviously speak for themselves, that attach reality to the what ever story, Look i said hack away its already in a blog http://openspacedocumentary.blogspot.com/, I'm used to it only certain people have credibility, people would rather play games than look atfacts , i guess i made up this picture to https://picasaweb.google.com/113887095518751868135/KevinLajinessHistoryGenealogyAndART#5122466887618841970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Lajiness (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have taken all referance to facebook out, all the other links are easily verifiable, My pictures of article are just that and unless the authors step forward or I can find them in archives, the rest of the pictures leave little to scrutinize, they are what they are. And I've done what I could do to rewrite it so unless others step forward there is little i can do, but dig.Kevin Lajiness (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the reasons listed above and then some.
"Time to build a consensus" is now, during the articles' deletion discussion, and results from a consensus of all involved or interested editors, not whatever time frame is convenient for the original author to cast about and find people who will support them. As of now, 7 other editors (including the original nominator) beside myself find this article unsuitable for inclusion 7 days after nomination, with no votes to support: consensus is rarely much clearer than that.
I find no evidence of notability (though, in fairness, unlike some on this wiki, I do not believe all places are notable just because they are places). There may be other subjects touched on in the original article that may be noteworthy enough for their own articles, and thus their works or relation to the subject of this AfD discussion may be referred to there, however there are simply too many things wrong with this article for it to stand, not the least of which is the apparent COI of the original author and his apparent feelings of ownership towards it.
Additionally, while someone with firsthand and specific knowledge of a topic might be a good candidate for creating and/or curating an article, they should do so only by using their knowledge to sort fact from fiction in terms of collating and compiling said facts from reliable secondary sources into a cohesive and comprehensive article, not by using information only they possess and references to their own writings to submit original research, in clear violation of policy.
If for no other reason, I find insufficient coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, per
WP:GNG, to mark this as notable enough for this encyclopedia. besiegedtalk 18:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
There's nothing wrong with attempting to write an article, and your story is admirable, but a number of experienced editors have explained the problems very plainly. You've removed your name from the article, but this is still all about you. A rhetorical question: when you did the good work of refurbishing the park, did you do it because it was a worthy pursuit, or because you wanted recognition? Because that's the unavoidable impression here. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you knew what i know about how goverment works , you would want the story out to , and if you were thrown under the bus just for it to be "Turned" into something you would do what i am doing, I grew up on Lake erie my grandfathers bait shop was surrounded by open space and a power plant, without going it detail, its a dead zone now, but i know what a healthy environment is,No snakes, no amphibians, no muskrat, no crayfish, all gone, Linwood is less than 4 square miles i fought to keep this property from being developed, its unique onto itself because its a watershed for the freshwater wetland, Box turtles are now Threatened, i had to make it as attractive and usable as i could to open eyes , there's more but in time , but I did make enemies, you can still say its about me , but i didn't spend a solid year someday from dawn do dust raking stone into pot holes with people laughing at me because i wanted recognition ,I did it for what you see in the pictures, now I want a record a history, not to be thanked as some editors or some in the city might think, even though they went out of there way to hide meKevin Lajiness (talk) 00:25, 22 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_cleaning_up_and_building_of_SJI_Park&oldid=1141940821"