Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foothill Boulevard (Southern California)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Foothill Boulevard (Southern California)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted. Tagged for sources since 2007 without a single change. Prod declined as highway is part of a former major route, but that does not transfer notability to this individual part of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and recommend withdrawal. In a 5 minute Google search I found the following: [1][2][3][4][5] --Rs chen 7754 00:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: and these sources will magically add themselves to the article now that you've found them, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not relevant to this discussion. --Rs chen 7754 01:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754:Yes it is. Every time I start an AFD and someone finds sources, no one ever bothersto add the sources, because everyone is expecting everyone else to do it. so the article is kept, and then five years later it still looks like shit because no one ever bothered to add the sources. You'd think if it were so goddamned notable, someone would've done something by now, but no, it's just an endless game of hot potato. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it is relevant to the discussion because you're personally frustrated. I get that the article is not that good right now, but so are so many others. --Rs chen 7754 01:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as another editor observed, multiple reliable sources are available. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources to be found, and AfD is not cleanup. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelbystripes: @TheCatalyst31: Again, are you going to add those sources, or are you just going to pass the buck too? If it's so fucking notable, then FUCKING FIX IT. Don't expect someone else to do it for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:, I hope you realize this isn't how AfDs work. I might actually come back and work on it at some point. But I don't expect anyone to fix it "for me" because I don't WP:OWN the page, nor does any one editor. If it offends you so much that the references haven't been worked in yet, why don't you fix it since references were already helpfully provided to you? My "Keep" vote stands regardless. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelbystripes: See above. Because I see this happen all the time in articles: someone digs up sources, the article is kept because those sources exist, but no one ever gets around to adding them. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:, then perhaps you should hold an RFC on changing the criteria for AfD, because this is not how AfDs currently work. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage and I see no reason why TenPoundHammer couldn't add the sources to the article. Lepricavark (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I see no reason why anyone else can't, either, but apparently everyone in this AFD thinks the sources will just add themselves. Because that's totally how this fucking works, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sources will add themselves, which is why I suggested that you add them since you have expressed the concern that they will not otherwise be added. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable != notable. --Rs chen 7754 18:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TPH, it is difficult to believe you are truly concerned about the sources being added if you refuse to do so yourself. Lepricavark (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's notability is defined outside of Wikipedia. The relevant entry in WP:ATA is WP:NOIMPROVEMENT, which states, "Per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles." Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: "blah blah blah I'm too lazy to add the sources myself, but I'm gonna scream that it's notable because it's notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer:, personal attacks are inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for discussing AfDs, please stop. Also, "I'm going to say that it's notable because it's notable" is a truism. If it's notable, editors are supposed to say it's notable and it is supposed to be kept based on editor consensus on notability. You are welcome to improve the articles yourself if you are so concerned about their current state. References were already found for you. But either way, please cease the personal attacks before this has to be escalated. Shelbystripes (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: I know you well enough to know that your attacks, to the extent that they are attacks, are not personal. But now look at what happened to the work I did after one of your nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Prill (2nd nomination). Here is the result of my work in improving that article after your AfD: Johnny Prill, which is a red link. So if you want articles improved, AfD is an ineffective way to do it. Unscintillating (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also have no intention of adding the sources but that is irrelevant, because they are there, It would be funny if in 5 years time this comes back up and the sources have disappeared from the internet because no one added them to the page and the links above rotted. -_- Dysklyver 21:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I understand TenPoundHammer's frustration: I have added some of the sources that some other users quoted above. It'd have been jolly nice if they'd add them themselves - I've nominated several AfDs which have been kept with the rationale "sources exist". They're not going to add themselves are they? Sheesh, I'll do the rest in the morning. DrStrauss talk 20:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have liked to. I would like to get all the 200+ California road articles to GA, in fact. But this is a volunteer project after all, and surprisingly, I have a life outside Wikipedia that gives me more important demands. --Rs chen 7754 00:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: Wikipedians have lives? :P DrStrauss talk 12:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the existing sources, not to mention one of the long-important arteries of southern California. TPH, you need to understand that GNG only requires the existence or sources indicating notability, not that they're actually in the article. Wikipedia:Deletion policy makes it explicitly clear that article improvement should be done rather than deleting. Yes, your frustration is about article improvement, but simply throwing articles of notable topics up for AfD just because of their current state is a form WP:DISRUPT. Yes, frequently WP is underachieving in terms of quality articles and we are in need of more editors, but attempting to delete such articles makes the problem worse. Not-great articles of notable topics are much more preferred than no articles. While you can charge everyone here with "FUCKING FIX IT", if you're so upset at the current state of an article you come across, we might say the same for you. Instead of AfD, practice WP:SOFIXIT. --Oakshade (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per existing sources and WP:NOIMPROVEMENT.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:21, 5 October 2017 (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.