[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Desert County, California

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. There is clearly a consensus not to delete (even the nominator came around to the idea of redirecting). It's about evenly split between keeping the current article and redirecting it to somewhere (and, if that happens, there's not complete agreement on what the target would be). Since a redirect would not require admin involvement, I'm going to call this NC, and allow the, "Should we redirect this, and if so, where?" discussion to continue on the article's talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

High Desert County, California

[edit]
High Desert County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

High Desert (California) geographic area already exists as an article. I find nothing in the article, or anything on the web that says California passed legislation in 2006 to create a new county named High Desert. Note that List of U.S. county secession proposals refers to a 2002 proposal by state legislator William J. Knight and supplies dead links; it also mentions a defeated 2006 voter referendum that involved splitting Santa Barbara County, but that is not in the High Desert. There have been a number of unsuccessful splitting geography efforts in California, and I'm not sure we need a separate article on each one. — Maile (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just as an FYI, since as nominator I'm not supposed to vote, I have no problem at all with this becoming a redirect to anything mentioned below. For historical precedence in California, see Talk: Mission County, California. It went the rounds from a 2005 stand-alone article, to a 2006 move to "Mission County proposal", and then in 2013 merged into Santa Barbara County, California#Proposed county splits — Maile (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: High Desert County was to be split out of 3 counties, so no one county article can have a "suggested splits" section and cover this. Rather this topic would appropriately be covered or at least mentioned in the three counties' articles, so describing it in one place, linked from those 3, is more efficient. IMHO. --doncram 03:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, now that the article has been updated and expanded with appropriate references, I am going to change my vote to keep. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, I would also support redirecting this. Incidentally, if you're interested in these kinds of topics, you may be interested in the article for Partition and secession in California. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notecardforfree, would you prefer the redirect to go to that article? I wouldn't object. — Maile (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, if we are going to redirect this anywhere, I think that High Desert (California) is the best choice because I suspect readers will be looking for information about that geographic region. Partition and secession in California is about past attempts to subdivide California into separate states; I mentioned the article above because I thought you might be interested in this subject matter. In any event, if editors want to include information about attempts to subdivide Los Angeles County, I think the best place to include information about the division is at the article for Los Angeles County. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notecardforfree Then thanks for linking Partition and secession in California. The history is incredible, isn't it? — Maile (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, it really is incredible. If you'd like to learn more about similar proposals in other states, you may also enjoy list of U.S. state partition proposals. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_U.S._county_secession_proposals#California - If it was never put in force, then the county never existed and shouldn't have a page. The proposal to create it might have a page, but then we need to show that this proposal is in itself notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and develop. It was a real proposal, proposed by William J. Knight for seemingly good reasons given in 1998 Los Angeles Times article linked here. The assertion in the Wikipedia article that the county was "approved" is incorrect, unless it would be clarified that there was an approval for a referendum in Los Angeles County, say, if that is what happened. Excerpted from LA Times article:
Knight's bill, which would eliminate the signature-collecting step required to get the proposal on the ballot, would have to get past state and county lawmakers who will fight to keep Santa Clarita, Lancaster and Palmdale in Los Angeles County, Victor Valley in San Bernardino County and Mojave and California City in Kern County.
...
Knight said he plans to draft an amendment to the California Constitution next year if his county bill is successful. The amendment would change voting procedures for forming a new county, allowing only people within the boundary to vote on the matter. The amendment would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
As the law currently exists, all voters in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Kern counties would be able to cast a ballot on whether to form High Desert County.
...
Also there were two sources at List_of_U.S._county_secession_proposals#California that have gone bad, but presumably were valid sources within Knight's legislative records that could be found anew.
It seems possible to me that the Los Angeles County, or Kern County, or San Bernardino County, or the state of California passed some bill in 2006 related to this. (Perhaps approval for the financial feasibility study mentioned below). Keep the article and allow it to be developed, as this is exactly the kind of thing that Wikipedia does well. The Wikipedia article can remember and provide detail or allow collection of detail on a kind of proposal (for secession and merger of seemingly neglected rural areas of adjoining counties) that is likely to come up again, in same area or similar neglected areas, allowing people to learn from history.
Google using quotes i.e. search for Knight "High Desert County" finds:
Note this includes interesting connection to other secession history: "The bill mirrors legislation passed into law last year by Assemblyman George Runner, R-Lancaster, that authorized a commission to look at Los Angeles County's fiscal health and effectiveness in delivering services, a possible first step to splitting up the county...."
Although I'd prefer "Keep", if the consensus is nonetheless to remove the article, then a redirect to List_of_U.S._county_secession_proposals#California is obviously (to me) better than a redirect to High Desert (California), because the topic is about political secession. --doncram 01:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think an unsuccessful political proposal need to have a lot of in-depth coverage to show WP:N. You are right that a redirect to List_of_U.S._county_secession_proposals#California is better than deleting. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been developed, using sources uncovered in this AFD, by editor Everymorning and myself. Further editing help would be appreciated. --doncram 04:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Acutally, @Doncram and Everymorning:, your combined efforts to expand this article are admirable. However, this is still just a failed election year proposal among other failed proposals. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_U.S._county_secession_proposals#California - While the information in the article is interesting, there doesn't seem to be enough information or sources to confer notability for an article on a county that is non-existent and has only been proposed. Furthermore, the article title is misleading in that it would lead someone who is not from the area to think a county by this name really does exist rather than just being a failed proposition. TheBlinkster (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact you think mention of the topic in Wikipedia could cause someone to think it exists...is reason IMHO to have the article. With it clarified by an article, there is now no longer any way elsewhere someone can link to the county name and have it be just a redlink, suggesting that a county exists and that an article is needed. And the article with its clear explanation will rapidly become the top hit, or nearly the top hit, in Google results, so it will be clarified everywhere that this is a proposal not an actual county. :) Wikipedia will not suggest by categories, by List of counties in California, or by any other way that this is an actual county. However, point taken nonetheless: a name change to Proposed High Desert County, California or similar could possibly be better. That doesn't have to be decided at AFD though; a requested move can be proposed at the Talk page after this AFD, assuming the AFD closes Keep.
Note there is now at AFD another secession county proposal: Cascade County, Washington. The case for a separate article there is weaker, because the initiative is less well documented and because it is a proposal for a split from just one county, not from three counties as here (so treatment within the one county's article works better). --doncram 08:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about notability. Don't you need significant coverage in *national* news? That's at lest an argument I've heard before. Only the LA Times article could be regarded as such. It might also possibly be published in a local only segment of the magazine or something, I don't know, but unless that's the case, (I think LA Times counts as a national news source. But one column explaining why the proposal isn't even a serious proposal but only to "keep the kettle boiling" doesn't make "significant coverage" IMO. I don't think this topic is notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @OpenFuture: On the contrary, notability can be established even when topics have only received coverage within a local or regional community (see WP:ITSLOCAL). There is no requirement that topics receive coverage in national news sources. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/High_Desert_County,_California&oldid=1078176876"