Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walker Park, Indiana

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. Consensus is that this locality does not meet either GEOLAND or otherwise the GNG. My feeling is also that mentioning it in a "parent" article would be UNDUE and that redirecting isn't needed, however that is somewhat outside of the scope of an AfD close. firefly ( t · c ) 16:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Park, Indiana

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Taking this one to AFD as searching is a bit more difficult than normal. While "Walker Park" is apparently a common name for municipal parks in Indiana (there appears to be one in the South Bend area and another out by Evansville), this specific location appears to be about this set of vacation homes. Vacation homes don't meet WP:GEOLAND and I haven't turned up anything that would indicate this specific spot meets WP:GNG, so taking here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 03:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> Tippecanoe Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana, where it is listed. Djflem (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a generic non-notable subdivision, it shouldn't even be mentioned on the township page. Reywas92^Talk 13:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:GEOLAND: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the consideration of WP:UNDUE - GEOLAND doesn't require us to mention a subject if mentioning it would be undue detail in the higher-scale article. Through my research into the Indiana places, I've determined that there's frankly so many of these little housing developments/resort homes/etc that there simply isn't a way to mention them all in a township or county article without providing grossly undue weight, even in list form. Hog Farm _Talk 22:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The stated policy has noting to do with the above so that's a big stretch. What are the points of view being presented and how are they not balanced in their presentation, when actually, there no point of view being presented? Geoland doesn't say that at all either. Djflem (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at a bit of cross purposes - I'm arguing that a set of vacation homes isn't due weight to mention in the township article due to the sheer number of these things, while your statement above seems to be explicitly arguing for inclusion of this material citing GEOLAND? Hog Farm _Talk 23:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that there are guidelines. Using UNDUE incorrectly and fudging on NGEO because it's inconvenient are not really AfD arguments. Djflem (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- There are infinite places on the planet, we are not obligated to mention every non-notable housing development whose only sources are database entries. We have no information to include beyond its existence as a few nondescript streets of houses like the subdivision I grew up in – that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are dozens more such subdivisions both in unincorporated Kosciusko County and nearby incorporated Warsaw, and this theory would just clutter our pages with crap. Reywas92^Talk 03:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ideas about Wikipedia is for and crap, but this is an AfD discussion not an opinion poll or place to share irrelevant user biographic details Djflem (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too grew up in a housing development in the United States! Dear reader, where did you grow up? :) --Doncram (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I considered this to be without any clear consensus, especially after 3+ week period of no activity, however at the nominator's request, I have reverted to allow an explicit outcome from one of those expressed above to be enacted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, non-legally-recognized subdivision. Mentioning at the township level would indeed be UNDUE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a non-notable, run-of-the-mill housing subdivision. Redirecting to the township article is not recommended. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:16, 2 August 2022 (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.