# Talk:Queen Anne Pool

@Generalissima, Dumelow,  and Z1720: Is anyone else concerned that Queen Anne Pool might have a notability problem? Three of its five sources are government-sponsored (on a public works project), and a fourth is a blog post. Is it worth pulling, or are the govt. sources fine and I'm barking up the wrong tree? And I don't think it'd count just because it's designated as historic... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Am I missing a guideline that says that government sources (from separate agencies in this case) don't confer notability? Footnote 3 of WP:GNG explicitly lists books and government reports as examples of reliable sources. The main source here is the report submitted to the LPB, which was put together by a private historical firm on behalf of the Queen Anne Historical Society; neither directly connected to the subject. I could have cited articles from the Queen Anne Historical Society or contemporary news coverage in the Seattle Times and SPI, but I felt that was unnecessary given how broad and comprehensive the report is.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Government reports are definitely reliable, but governments produce thousands of reports on their own public works on a regular basis – I think that'd count as non-independent. But yeah, while I guess the government publishing the LPB report technically makes it non-independent, I'm happy to IAR on that. The blog post should probably still be replaced, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
The blog posting meaning the Arte Noir one? Yeah, fair point; I replaced that with the Queen Anne Historical Society.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   05:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Government sources can be reliable for content, but when considering whether WP:GNG is met, the sources used to establish notability must be independent of the subject. I agree with Leeky here, this doesn't seem (based on the sources mentioned) to meet the notability threshold. Much of the detail is cited to Pratt & Howard 2023, which I don't think is independent, given that the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board is appointed by the mayor and council that owns this facillity. Similarly, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods 2024 and Seattle Parks and Recreation 1975 are connected to the city. The only independent source in the list is Mumford, but that isn't used to establish facts about the pool itself. I'd suggest pulling for now, and considering an AFD run, unless better sources can be found.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Meh.  I tend to think any landmarked structure is notable, but can't find anything under WP:N to support that.  In any case, even if it was found to not be notable, some of the material should be merged into Benjamin F. McAdoo.  I wouldn't object to it being pulled until this can be resolved. RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Generalissima I've replaced it with another entry of yours, hoping you wouldn't feel bad. The replaced hook is in now prep 7. BorgQueen (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Amakuru: @RoySmith: Important note: the report is not from the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board, which does not produce any of its own reports (much like how the NRHP reports are often filled out by people who have nothing to do with the National Parks Service.) It's from the Queen Anne Historical Society, submitted to the SPLB for their approval. Much of the same information is found on the QAHS website itself, but not in such a neat and tidy format.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   15:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been looking at this a bit and I'm really torn.  I've certainly created plenty of articles about small parks near me such as Givans Creek Woods, Printer's Park, Vinmont Veteran Park and Julio Carballo Fields, all of which have marginal WP:N arguments.  On the other hand, despite my comment above about being landmarked, I really can't find anything that talks about it which isn't the kind of obligatory coverage you find in travel guides and social media.  I did find it mentioned in Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl (ed.). "Shaping Seattle architecture : a historical guide to the architects". Retrieved 25 August 2024 – via Internet Archive. but that's truly a passing mention: While McAdoo received few high-profile commissions, his reputation for sound work brought him a number of larger projects such as ... and the Queen Anne Pool (1974-78).  If that's all a book entirely about architecture in Seattle can find to say about it, that's not a good sign.  RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, basically every structure in Shaping Seattle Architecture is giving a cursory mention; it's a survey of architects.  Generalissima (talk) (it/she)   15:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

---Another Believer (Talk) 20:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, thanks for this article. Regarding Frodesen's cost increase, "low bid of $764,000 (equivalent to $4,700,000 in 2023)... costs went on to exceed their initial bid for a total cost of $843,000 (equivalent to $4,500,000 in 2023)". The template generated inflation figure looks strange ie an 'increase' from 4.7 to 4.5 million. I am guessing the anomaly is due to regular inflation between 1974 and 1976? What to do? Would it be viable to use 1974 in the second inflation template? That would bring the 2023 increase to $5,200,000 which makes more sense. I couldn't see anything in the FN 3 pdf that would specifically preclude such a solution. JennyOz (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)