Several recent posts have got me thinking about these again. My question is where do you draw the line with “dedicated to a notable figure and that notability is described in the nomination“?
I am UK based so the following is the sort I receive in Review. It is only the 3rd point that I am looking for opinions on but feel free to comment on the others…
Famous historic people, monarchs (jubilees, coronations) and benches dedicated to military are nearly always Accepted.
Dedications to family / friends that have passed. No “notability“ stated or just copying the plaque with “Loved this area”. These would normally be Rejected.
Now the following is where I would like opinions on where you draw the line.
Dedications to people associated to the benches location. Examples: A long time “Golf Club President” at the golf club, someone that was on the parish council at the parish hall or a long time Nurse / Doctor at a hospital. They are definitely “notable“ to some but not all, these I tend to Skip but would like to know what would you do?
Memorial benches for me, it’s a case of the submitter backing up the plaque/their claims. So just a few thoughts of my own below
“Memorial bench for Dan and Sue” Sorry you’ve lost Dan and Sue, but besides possible significance in your own life, how are they noteworthy?
“Memorial bench for Jacob Fortesque, who served on the Parish Council for 56 years”
Okay, a bit better. If he did, he would have done some notable work, contributed to the local area and there may even be some local news stories about him. Did you link all of that kind of stuff? If so, I’ll read it and probably lean to accepting. If not, try again and do your research.
I essentially agree with those broad accept/rejects.
With the standard caveat of each is assessed on its merits.
If there is a group that provided the bench then I start to consider that as a sign of that individuals local value. It’s then a question of the whole context.
For example a golf club president marked with a plaque at the golf club sounds more like it would be the usual thing to do. But if it’s a bench on the village green placed by the parish council, and notes that they had a significant role at the golf club and maybe something else locally then that starts to lift it out of the routine.
This is what I meant by using “nearly always” and “normally” so for this post I am assuming everything else (photos, text etc) meets criteria standards.
I laid out my reasons as to why I don’t see them as eligible, which are some reasons why the community doesn’t as well.
I stand by the clarification: the submitter has to provide proof that the person was of significance to the community. Links can be so helpful for nominations that need a little extra info to possibly get approved, and I almost always do my research beforehand to see if I can find any links that I can provide that may help improve the nomination.
Just an example is that there are memorial trees at a church in my hometown, and the memorials are to former church members. Other than them being former church members, I don’t think there’s much info out there about what else they did for the community. Also, don’t know if the church wants people to be walking on the grass, so there’s that, too.
I say this often and will say it again: the burden of proof is on the submitter, and if that proof isn’t provided as to why a nomination meets criteria, it may get rejected.
This was one of the post that got me thinking but if you re-read the OP then you will see I state what I see as the obvious Accepts and Rejects.
The question is where do you draw the line for those that sit in the middle?
You state the example of the “former church members” but what about a Bench for a long serving vicar? what if that vicar did a lot of good work for the village?
Somewhere there is a line that switches “Not Notable” to “Notable”. Where is this line according to you?
If there is no supporting information (links) to confirm the vicar did a lot of good work for the village, but merely a claim that they did or even merely a claim that they were a long-serving vicar, then the claim has little merit.
I am aware of the need for the submitter to prove what they are stating.
My question is “in your opinion, where is the line”?
Using the vicar example, he was only at that church for 5 years, didn’t do a lot for the village but links have been provided to prove he was the vicar for those 5 years?
There has to be a line where it goes over the notable line even for submissions with evidence. What I am asking is where do you place that line?
For me, there is no specific line. There is no mark in the sand where everything one side is accept and everything the other side is reject.
With memorial benches, some are easy rejects (see the photo, scan the description, reject) and some are easy accepts (do the usual checks and accept if OK). The ones in the middle, which you have accurately described, are variable and each one depends on the actual submission.
The hypothetical one where the memorial is to a person who happened to be a vicar for 5 years and had no other claim to importance - easy reject.
I now reject memorial benches unless they’re really distinct or the person is notable. That said, years ago when I didn’t have the nomination experience, I had a bench rejected near you, and rightfully so.
This is a memorial bench that’s nomination worthy; although that said, there’s already a Pokéstop next to this circle of military benches, and I haven’t nominated it due to their close proximity. The benches are arranged around a flagpole, which in essence, is already a stop…too many benches to nominate, but anyway…
I think it’s clear that there is no exact line, and you just have to use your best judgment, like so many things that in grey areas.
Sure, John may have loved to golf at a certain course and there is a memorial bench there honoring him, but other than just playing at said course a lot, he doesn’t seem very notable.
And Jane may have been a nurse at a local hospital, but the only thing that’s really significant is that she passed away at a young age, hence why there may be a memorial bench. She worked at the hospital, but other than her untimely death, she may not have made that much of an impact.
Sam was a former city council member, serving several terms. He worked to improve many different aspects of his city, including supporting the revitalization of the downtown area, working to add more art around town to make it a more vibrant place, and supported affordable housing programs. Sam was significant to his community, leaving a lasting impact that will be felt for years, even decades to come.
I’d reject the benches for John and Jane, but I’d accept it for Sam.
It’s all in the context of the submissions and what the submitter has provided.
A bench dedicated to a branch of the military or their members (current and past) is a bit different than memorial benches for a person or persons. I’d accept a bench dedicated to the Air Force, and this bench also appears to be unique in it’s design, not mass produced.
Even if there are other stops/gyms in the area, I’d still submit them, even if they won’t be used as stops/gyms. They could be used as Power Spots, for one, and with Wayfarer, we’re actually building a database map of interesting real-life POIs, not adding game place locations, as each game has their own inclusion rules.
Gateford Road Memorial Bench “Memorial bench surrounded by local artwork”.
Rejected because the memorial bench is for people of no significant merit. The artwork might have been worth a wayspot, had it been part of the submission. Strange mistake.
I believe the criteria used to be that memorial benches could be eligible if they were in an isolated location. That seems to have changed, it seemed like a good rule that a bench somewhere along a long walk could be a wayspot.
Here’s one I just rejected. Ok, so you say the person was a veteran, but you don’t give any info as to what conflicts they may have served in, what branch of the military, just that it’s a memorial bench.
There’s a general theme running through most submissions of memorial benches (and probably most other submissions as well), that the submitter assumes the wayspot will be approved and they don’t need to do anything to convince the reviewers.
What I haven’t been doing with my rejections is attempting to track whether they end up getting accepted, but I’m not sure what that would achieve anyway except possibly annoying me.
(off topic, but I just rejected one with a title of “Footpath marker”, for low-quality title.)
