Talk:Vista del Lago Visitors Center
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Link to a google news search for this: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Vista+del+Lago+Visitor+Center%22&btnG=Search&num=100&hl=en&um=1
It appears this opened in 1993 at a cost of 7 million dollars.
proposed deletion
[edit]The issue raised by the proposed deletion is a lack of secondary sources, presumably indicating a lack of notability. I contend that the Vista del Lago visitor center is notable notwithstanding an absence of secondary sources, and that the requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources is arbitrary. If an exception cannot be made for this article, then that policy clearly needs to be refined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrickator (talk • contribs) 09:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's trivial to find sources related to this visitor center, related to its construction or opening. Thank you for contesting the prod nom. riffic (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, okay, I'm sorry, I'm sorry... Brycehughes (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
advert and proposed deletion (October 2016)
[edit]Obviously this article is over the top in its promotion of this visitor center operated by the State of California. For instance, it claims that the "word search game" is FUN and also that the views from the balcony are PANORAMIC. Well, it didn't say they were SPECTACTULAR, I guess it really is an objective statement that there are PANORAMIC views.
Now as for notability, I will point out that this was addressed previously, but you might not agree that there was objective data presented to support this. However, please allow me to be clear: I advocate your going ahead and proposing the deletion, and then I'll be hoping for the deletion to go through, because I'm looking for evidence supporting my contention that Wikipedia's existing "open" model is just infeasible, so IMO, whatever anybody does to make things worse is really a Good Thing! You have my full support. Fabrickator (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
questioning revert of removal of notability tag
[edit]@James Allison: In reverting the removal of the notability tag, you write: "One RS does not establish notability, and third-party sources are preferred." Yet, the article includes one third-party source, and one non-third-party source, and you don't dispute the use of third-party sources, even if they are not preferred. Notwithstanding the presence of only these two sources in the article, note that as per WP:Notability, "the absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable."
The sources currently included in the article suggest that there is more than a scintilla of notability. Arguably, that is not good enough, but for you to reinstate the notability tag, I would think that you should at least have a good faith belief that this subject truly is not notable, so I'm curious as to what led you to such a good faith belief. Fabrickator (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)