Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alameda Measure A

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 as unsourced. Any article, to meet Wikipedia's standards, must do two things: 1. Assert the notability of its subject, and 2. document this assertion. The assertion of notability here is that the measure had ramifications outside the community and became precedent for other measures nationwide. After checking the links provided I find that the evidence for this has not been forthcoming. Simply put, if this measure was a landmark event reliable sources should not be hard to come by. ~ trialsanderrors 04:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alameda Measure A

Alameda Measure A (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Controversial town planning measure. Of interest only to people in this one city in California. -- RHaworth 04:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, local measures are rarely notable, and this one is definitely nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is of interest to people outside of Alameda - the world around - because Alameda is a microcosm of the ongoing debate in metropolitan centers around the world regarding land use, "slow-growth," affordable housing, and toxic waste sites. (Alameda Point is a federal superfund site that needs to be redeveloped.) It is instructive and useful to people all over the United States, indeed, the world over, to follow what goes on in Alameda regarding land use.

And anyway, so what if it is only of interest to people of Alameda? Who says that geography is the proper delimiter of communities of interest in Wikipedia? The Britney Spears page is only of interest to people who like Britney Spears. Perhaps the City of Alameda web page is also only of interest to people from Alameda? People from Alameda are entitled to look to Wikipedia to find information that is of interest to themselves as well, even if it doesn't have broad geographic interest, no? You would dis-enfranchise the citizens of Alameda from using Wikipedia to learn more about what goes on in their city?Mowster 04:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

These folks in New Jersey [[1]] for example, might be interested in following what goes on in Alameda and redevelopment on Alameda Point and the federal toxic waste superfund site. Shouldn't they be able to look it up on Wikipedia, if they hear about Alameda, and Measure A? If, for example, they received an email from someone like myself trying to talk to them about their experiences with superfund sites? -- Mowster 04:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

These folks in New Jersey ... might be interested... Then rent yourself some web-server space and serve it up to them. Or maybe you could just e-mail them yourself, cut out the middleman. Me, I could use some info on the local train schedule, what time is sunset and sunrise, and what movies are coming to the downtown multiplex, but I'm not expecting Wikipedia to provide those for me. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I could use some info.... This isn't train schedule information, or information that changes periodically like the tides, sunrise, sunset, movies at the local cineplex. There's over 30 years of history behind this issue. People in Alameda shouldn't be dis-enfranchised from finding out about it in Wikipedia. Where are the stats in Wikipedia that report who's hitting what entry? Mowster 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Free clue: the analogy isn't to how frequently the information changes.

People in Alameda shouldn't be dis-enfranchised from finding out about it in Wikipedia' If it's so damned important, if it's the Talk of the Island, then why the frack does it require Wikipedia's help to propagate? Don't they already know about it? --Calton | Talk 10:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Relevant for anyone interested in urban planning. Quite Wikipedic. Stammer 07:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Prove it. This article doesn't. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge any important information to Alameda and delete the rest. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I fail to understand the objection to this ballot measure, which is of such obvious public policy interest with many cities legislating on this issue, having its own article. A merger would solve nothing and the completeness and coherence of the present article would be irrevocably lost. Allon Fambrizzi 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

• If the Keep !voters will provide multiple non-local sources indicating that people outside of the Bay Area consider this measure as notable, then I will consider changing my !vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh hell, I doubt that Mowster and his meatpuppets will be able to provide anything from further away than Oakland. The only people here besides Mowster who've voted keep are people who only contribute to AfDs or who've only contributed to Alameda articles. Argyriou (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notability is subjective. What is non notable for one man may be for another. Having referenced and verifiable information is never harmful. -- Drini 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Drini, I am shocked an appalled that you would attempt to overturn months, if not years, of xFD discussions by attempting to claim that notability is not a requirement for keeping articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Zoe - here is a link [[2]] on slow-growth initiatives that mentions Alameda County and San Francisco, and the start of the movement since the 1970's, of which Measure A was part. And here is a reference to a state-side survey [[3]] Mowster 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither one of those links mentions this measure, and, in fact, the only reference to "Alameda" is to the county as a whole, and in both cases, one passing reference. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As a former long-time resident of Alameda (the county), I've heard diddly about this, even in local discussions of land-use. I love how the second paragraph practically begs for mercy to not be deleted. (This is important! Really!) --Calton | Talk 06:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is of interest to the fields of development and urban planning. However, the second paragraph in the introduction reads like it was written strictly to campaign against this AfD and is very unencyclopedic. This should be removed... The paragraph reads "This is of interest to people outside of Alameda - the world around - because Alameda is a microcosm of the ongoing debate in metropolitan centers around the world regarding land use, "slow-growth," affordable housing, and toxic waste sites. (Alameda Point is a federal superfund site that needs to be redeveloped.) It is instructive and useful to people all over the United States, indeed, the world over, to follow what goes on in Alameda regarding land use." --The Way 10:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I'm sure you will be able to provide sources verifying the claim? User:Zoe|(talk) 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - how long have you been living in Tokyo, and away from Alameda County? And yes, the second paragraph was entered by myself specifically in response to this AfD and I'm happy to remove it. And yes, those two links refer to land-use generally, and not to Measure A specifically. But how are people supposed to know that "Measure A" in Alameda refers to land-use if they look to an encyclopedia and can't find it? Happy to add tags/links tying this article to land-use specifically.Mowster 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't !vote more than once. And how are people supposed to believe that Measure A really does mean more than to just the people of the city of Alameda if we don't prove it, and so far we haven't, which means that so far, it's just a local proposition that doesn't mean anything outside of the city. Despite grandiose claims, you and the article's supporters have still failed to prove your claims, and I am hoping that the closing admin will take that into consideration when deciding how to close this. If you do come up with some outside sources to prove your claim, that will go a long way towards keeping this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You're too focused on term "Measure A" - I agree, you probably will never find anybody outside of alameda refer to the term "Measure A" - but that's not the point. The point is that 'land use' is an issue of great interest to people outside of Alameda, as other people have pointed out. This article is a land use article. People in Alameda know it by the term 'Measure A.' And again, you haven't provided any reason to dis-enfranchise Alameda residents from learning about it through Wikipedia. As for voting twice, that was not my intention - using Wikipedia amounts to using a programming language, and I'm not about invest half of my life learning another one. And yes, I've made some suggestions for improvement on my wiki page. Mowster 17:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Then write a small paragraph in the Growth management article. This article is clearly non-notable as you just proved above. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• how long have you been living in Tokyo, and away from Alameda County? A lot less time than I spent living, working, and going to college IN Alameda County, reading the East Bay Express (before they were swallowed up by New Times) and Oakland Tribune, and hearing bugger-all about this supposedly important measure. The crude ad hominem fallacy you just attempted was pretty laughable, by the way, and nothing new. --Calton | Talk 10:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• <Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. >- User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Mowster 00:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Read it yourself -- or did you entirely miss the point of the mention of the ad hominem fallacy, which was my comment on your action, which was your badly disguised personal attack. Oh man, the irony is so thick I could cut it with a knife. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This article has been a POV campaign piece since its inception, despite repeated efforts to clean it up and require references. Argyriou (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Argyriou is biased ARgyriou's vote doesn't count. Argyriou wants to delete it because he has been on the opposite side of the Measure A question from me since the beginning. I have worked with other people to make it more balanced, and suffered Argyriou (and his friends, I presume) editing the document over the past two months to repeatedly make it one sided in his own favor, forwarding his own Point of View.Mowster 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Argyriou (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ARgyriou's vote doesn't count To steal from Wolfgang Pauli, that's not right, that's not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think this AfD should be kept open at least an extra day or two - I just today notified three previous editors of the Alameda Measure A article of the existence of the AfD. Argyriou (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and those three other users are against Measure A, and are likely wont to delete it. They are not un-biased. Mowster 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I notified those three people because they were the only ones (other than bots) who'd edited the article who haven't spoken up here yet. I didn't check the content of their edits.

You really don't understand this, do you? You're trying to turn this AfD into a referendum on Measure A, rather than a question over whether Alameda's specific policy is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. All that your complaining about other people's biases does is make it appear that you don't have any real argument that Measure A is particularly notable. Argyriou (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly slight merge to Alameda. Not notable on its own. If anyone outside this city would actually care about this, we'd have sources for it by now. Sandstein 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Don't get hung up on the title - the subject is land use, and people outside of Alameda care about land use. See the previous entries.Mowster 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

People outside Alameda have their own land-use regulations, and most don't consider them to be Holy Writ. Argyriou (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I know I will be attacked no matter how I vote on this, so here goes. I think the tug-of-war over this Measure A article is ridiculous, and not just because I disagree with Mr. David Howard (AKA Mowster, AKA IP address 70.137.142.153) on the underlying issue. Measure A is of great interest to a number of Alameda residents, but I honestly don't think too many people beyond our borders are following it … though I must admit that whenever I tell people that it's illegal to build town homes, condominiums, and apartments in my town, it usually does raise an eyebrow or two. At any rate, I tried to use restraint in the few edits I made to the page, but nothing seems to satisfy Mr. Howard. Just as Measure A is a draconian measure to stop bad multiple-unit development by banning all multiple-unit development, my "delete" vote is a draconian measure to stop bad writing about Measure A by banning all writing about Measure A. MichaelJKrueger 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I realized that the real test for deletion of this article should not be its notability outside Alameda, but rather the guidelines under Conflict of Interest: Campaigning. In particular, "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." Mr. Howard, the author of the article and its predecessor (which was also deleted), is one of the founders of a political action committee whose stated goal is the preservation of Measure A. The group, Citizens for Alameda Neighborhoods (FPPC#1288721), funded literature supporting slow-growth candidates in the November 2006 mayoral and city council races in Alameda. I don't have an outside source to verify Mr. Howard's involvement (you'll have to take my word for it), but this appeal for support on his Measure-A-themed blog links him to the group through this form. I realize that I belong to a community group (Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense) on the other side of the Measure A issue, but I would be happy to forgo editing any Wikipedia pages about Measure A as long as Mr. Howard agrees to stop misrepresenting HOMES' position. MichaelJKrueger 03:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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.