Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Points of interest related to California on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup

Deletion Sorting Project
Project page (talk) Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to California. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

• To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

• Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
• You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|California}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
• There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

• Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
• You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to California.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US

Purge page cache

Watch this page

Contents 1 California 1.1 Pine Cove (fictional town) 1.2 Californian independence 1.3 Nikki Catsouras 1.4 Proposed deletions

[edit] California

[edit] Pine Cove (fictional town)

Pine Cove (fictional town) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable original research article that does not establish notability nor provide any references or sources or even external links on a fictional place used in a few works but that may or may not even be the same place. they likely simply share a name. this topic is a stub and has no future. Myheartinchile (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as it stands the article doesn't appear to assert notability really and contains no 3rd party references for verifiability. If sources can be found and included in the article which show the town is notable than I'm willng to say keep. I do agree with the nom that unless a source can be found and referenced stating that the newer use of the town is the same as the earlier one than that section should be removed from the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Californian independence

Californian independence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no reliable sources that such a movement even exists other than a few Yahoo groups and an essay by someone described as a satirist; notability is not shown and reliable sources do not seem to exist. Large portions of the article are clear original research and essay (WP:SOAP) Article should redirect to List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_States, if anything. Stlemur (talk) 09:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also WP:UNDUE. Redirect unnecessary as this doesn't even come close to being a 'movement'. Debate 木 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as not reliably sourced (unlike Cascadia and the state of Jefferson, both of which have published sources). WillOakland (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Deletion the article needs rewriting to reflect the limited scope of the movement- more a cultural phenomena- but it has published sources reflecting legitimate and existing opinions. Not the New York Times, but legitimate alternative media sites none the less.--David Barba (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would you mind posting a couple of your sources? At the moment there's none in the article itself and I'm personally struggling to find anything even half credible... The closest the article gets is a satirical opinion piece from 2002 that includes the highly encyclopedic "10 Most Bitchin' Reasons California Becoming Its Own Country Would Be So Cool". Other sources include a Google group that hasn't been active since October 2007, and a primary source website that is almost completely devoid of content... Debate 木 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Deletion I'll agree with David Barba and say that it does indeed need to be rewritten right now, but I don't think it needs to be deleted.

"At the moment there's none in the article itself and I'm personally struggling to find anything even half credible..."

Here's a couple of sources that seem credable:

• Californians for Independence
• Free The Bear: Independence for California

Iveri R. (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)— Iveri R. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Neither of those sites establish notability. One guy with a webpage is not a movement. --Stlemur (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What I was think of when I opposed were a few groups organized several years ago that made news in a few California local and college papers, and if I remember correctly the SF Chronicle or Guardian. However it appears now that they have since disbanded and whatever material there was I can no longer find. What a shame. It's really too bad in my opinion. Far out political movement, that a half jokes to begin with, are really the best and most creative.--David Barba (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha! I was about to concede my position. But sources found.

"Long Live Secession!", Salon.com

"If at first you don't secede", also Salon

"California Split", New York Times

"Movement explores possibility of California secession", The California Aggie

"Californians Dreaming of Secession?", CNSNews.com

"Forget Canada, let's have California secede" By Jeremy Beecher & "California, independent in everything but reality" by Patt Morrison Daily Trojan and LA Times, I can't find the originals sorry.

Basically, the committee set up in 2005 called "Move On California" to explore California secession got the most press coverage (it appears to have since disbanded) and otherwise secession reflects a popular cultural fantasy, often satirical, yet genuine sentiment none the less. The article does need to be rewritten to reflect to real scope of the "movement" and its cultural and political context- highest affinity following conservative Republican success in the 2002 and 2004 national elections. --David Barba (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth:

• 1. is about Vermont and succession generally. California warrants barely rates a paragraph and a half in a much longer article - a couple of flavor quotes from a "former evangelical minister".
• 2. is about Liberal disenchantment, makes some vague commentary on succession generally, and doesn't mention CA succession anywhere specifically.
• 3. is an op-ed, mainly on the USA being too big, with some throw-away speculation that CA might be a candidate for succession someday.
• 4. reports the same single news event as #1. The report notes "5,000 hits and 200 e-mail responses" to the organization's website (following minor news coverage).
• 5. a tiny, cookie-cutter article quoting the "former evangelical minister" again.
• 6. Appears to be a blog, with quotes attributed to the LA Times including "we don't need no stinkin' secession either", an op-ed piece that's more of a general rant.

So anyhow, if a single news cycle story about the loony pronouncements of one individual, coupled with a couple of op-eds that don't even clearly advocate the topic, and a couple of other minor references in articles about something else are enough to establish notability around here then near every boy and his dog, not to mention every piece of trivial satirical commentary, have a case for articles as well. Debate 木 02:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There are enough publications to establish notability.Biophys (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think notability has been established. If you feel the article does not reflect the reality presented in the sources, rewrite the article- don't delete. Debate, you argument at this point comes down to personal preferences (your opinion)- not wikipedia standards. This question veers a bit off-topic and don't take it too personally, but why take wiki and encyclopedic knowledge so seriously? Important to note (since we're discussing Cali anyways) that most Californians have less strict attitudes about these things. This user personally happens to believe all knowledge is ultimately subjective anyways, so get over it.--David Barba (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability has not been established. Quoting from the General Notability Guideline, we have:

1. Significant coverage: Only trivial coverage has been shown; the news articles linked to all fail the criteria for notability in news coverage.
2. Reliable sources While I'll readily admit the newspapers cited are decent newspapers, their coverage is trivial. The non-trivial coverage does not come from reliable sources; it's blogs, internet fora, and self-published websites.

Furthermore, I'd like to ask that everyone involved in this discussion please refrain from making assumptions about the modes of thought of either their fellow Wikipedians or of Californians. --Stlemur (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quoting Notability guidelines: "News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services."

The California Aggie, Solan.com, and CNSNews.com are independent of the "movement" and associated groups/individuals in question. The other sources reflect opinions, notable to the sentiment of California secession under discussion (Patt Morrison is not a nobody in California public discourse). Your point about sources: The blogs linked are not the sources- they are reproductions of the articles actually published in reputable sources- LA Times, Daily Trojan ect. It is otherwise difficult to acquire the entire texts from archive for demonstration purposes- to prove what they actually said. If you can help in this regard it would be appreciated. The blogs are not being cited, the newspapers are. Again you are subjectively characterizing this coverage as trivial- your opinion, not the guidelines. Please direct your criticism to rewriting the article.--David Barba (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Those news outlets are independent, as I've already stated. Their coverage is, I reiterate, non-subjectively trivial according to the guidelines cited above. I'll quote:

News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate. 2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future).

(1) is not met, and (2) is not met.

I'm not arguing and have never argued in this discussion that something being copied in a blog makes it an unreliable source; it's simply that every citation provided thus far is either insubstantial, unreliable, or in the case of many of the pieces cited by the article and by you, outright satirical.

As for rewriting the article, the reason why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place is that if one includes in the article only facts cited in reliable sources, there is nothing at all left other than "two websites and a Yahoo group have people who think California should secede from the US." That's not even a stub. --Stlemur (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) is clearly met by the sources provided. You are characterizing these sources, from reputed outlets, as "insubstantial, unreliable", selectively judging sources based on personal assessment of content rather than notability.--David Barba (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Then show us a book, a documentary, a non-trivial academic study, or an important public debate independent of news services on the subject of Californian independence. --Stlemur (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Note, also WP:UNDUE, which is where we started and which entirely sums things up for me, quote:

• "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." (my emphasis. nb. nor is this an "ancillary article", it's the main article)

Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To closing admin, note also the vote stacking above. Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Stlemur, the editorial articles included in that list (I believe only the California Aggiee and CNSNews.com are strict news reports) constitute public debate (that's what editorials are), apart of the historical record- even if you and I may find some silly. Some additional sources "How to Secede From Jesusland, Without Really Fighting" SF Weekly, "Political groups want California to secede Union" Daily Titan, "Free California: is independence the answer? " by Robert Nanninga, "Group Explores California Secession" by Jeff Morrissette. But to further assure you there is the documentary A State of Mine (2008) featuring the Move On California group.

Debate, your point is mute in this debate (about deletion) but refers us to another discussion- one I totally agree with having- as to whether and how this article ought to be merged with another more appropriate main article- made into a "ancillary article". And about prominent adherents- Jeff Morrissette founded the since disbanded group Move On California and the current head of the Californians for Independence is Kyle Ellis, attendant to the 2007 Chattanooga 2nd Secessionist Convention put on by the Middlebury Institute wiki: Middlebury Institute. I also hope the large number of texts by different authors shows that this sentiment is/was more popular than a few crackpots. For future reference altering an article or merging it with another in order to better conform with Wikipedia standards is always preferred as opposed to ought right removal of material, apart of operating in good faith of which making false accusations of vote stacking is not. The democratic experiment of Wikipedia is about maintaining an open mind and interest in the unfamiliar.--David Barba (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, none of the additional citations quoted cover anything other than the short flurry of light/novelty news concerning Jeff Morrissette's short-lived 2004 website. Jeff Morrissette is not significant per WP:BLP1E. At best we've established a case for an article about Move On California, however I'd personally argue against that per WP:NOTNEWS. Can I further suggest that there's one editor violating WP:Assume good faith, not to mention borderline WP:Civil, in this debate and it's not me. Debate 木 04:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I frankly find your new highly technical argument fairly silly- most wiki articles are based on less than has been established here. I believe notability for an article on California Secession (possibly ancillary) has been established and will let other users come to their own conclusions.--David Barba (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Other articles are based on less" is not a valid argument in deletion debates. I'm inclined to think, though, that part of the problem here is a dearth of voices; should I re-list the article on AfD so there are more than three opinions here? --Stlemur (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-listing sounds like a smart idea. This article is obviously controversial and something approximating consensus would be good. Cheers. :) Debate 木 12:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stlemur (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - none of the sources quoted mention a movement called "Californian Independence" that I can see. There are a couple of sources that quote a movement called "Move On California" but one of them is a student newspaper, which can hardly be described as a notable publication, and the other is CNSNews.com which is a marginal rightwing source. The movement itself also appears to have disappeared shortly after it arose. So I just can't see any reason to have an article on it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable political standpoint with a lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing for verifiability purposes. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep there are enough sources for this. Problems discussed above can be handled by expansion.DGG (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There may be a lot of rumbling about this but I don't see in the article (or am I aware of otherwise) that this movement has had significant influence on the policies or politics of California or the United States as a whole. Perhaps it could be merged into some California politics article as a compromise. Thetrick (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Secession in the United States, it isn't especially notable in and of itself but there is enough information to include it as a section in the article about various sundry secessionist movements within the country. Shereth 17:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Merge proposal. Perhaps in the future it will merit its own article, but not now.--David Barba (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete due to triviality of links above. Spell4yr (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Am willing to support merge although the sourcing would still need to be improved. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable, the sources are trivial at best. I don't agree with DGG as many of the sources cited have a tenuous at best connection to Californian Succession, and I'd rather see decent sources exist before the article is (re?)created rather than afterwards. If sources arise in the future then it can always be recreated. May warrant a mention in the general succession article, but given the sourcing issues I'd say just create that section from scratch rather than mergingCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can find some better sources. A few reliable sources are cited, but none of them actually talk about any kind of movement for California secession. While I have a certain amount of sympathy with the sentiment expressed, at this point, there's no evidence so far that this "movement" extends beyond a couple of guys running web sites from their parents' basements. Klausness (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Murge in to Califonia or even Atzlan if it's Mexican by nature.--86.29.253.81 (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, even sources provided don't seem to provide full-scope coverage; seems trivial. Kman543210 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions

• Bear Valley Road (Mojave Desert region, California) (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-10)

---

---