Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bajalta 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bajalta California

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

This term has next to no currency. The article itself acknowledges that nearly all references to this term in sources originate with a single paper. Dohn joe (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and comment: I suggested at one point (at Talk:Bajalta California) that the article be rewritten to be about the book (Postborder City: Cultural Spaces of Bajalta California), or at least rewrite the lede to make clearer that the whole concept is from the book. This seems a better solution than just deleting, as it's an interesting concept. I've never seen the book. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with renaming the article and having it be about the book. I agree that it's an interesting concept, but concepts shouldn't be presented as actual subjects with their own articles. Dohn joe (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; This article focuses on the concept and elaborates on it as well, to me, I seemed that the article explained in the beginning that it was in reference to the book, which has since been accepted and distributed across many educational and economic institutions as any search of "Bajalta" will show. Other than that, this article should stay named as so, because it is the most common name, the book title should redirect here possible. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as a neologism. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google search for the term brings just under 6K hits, (under 5k when you remove wikipedia)most referring to a single book which uses the term. A news search brings up three hits for the use of the term, two referring to said book. Perhaps the book itself is notable, the term is definitely not. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that the article is being reoriented to now focus on the concept and not the area as a defined geographical eegion. 08OceanBeach SD (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Move to Bajalta California (geography and urban planning) Here is Michael Dear's job title, professor of geography and urban planning. I have added to the Bibliography section at Bajalta California about seven authors who have discussed the concept. And I do say, "concept", Dear himself says in 2005, "This enormous agglomeration of people and activities has no name." I've also added the article as a "See also" at Urbanism, and changed the first sentence of the article to say that this is a concept. Unscintillating (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:PRECISION seems to say that parenthetical additions to titles should only used when disambiguation (not clarification) is necessary. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that for five years people have been adding to this article as if it was a geography article and that this is one of the reasons for the AfD. Looking at WP:Precision, I see the words, "titles are expected to use names and terms that are...as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." The ambiguity is the confusion between the urbanism concept and a geographical area. "<T>he choice between <article titles> is made by consensus." Beyond that, is it your point that we should delete the article because of the clarity of the name, or are you saying you'd agree now to keep the article with the present name and the change to the first sentence? I'd be ok if the article title was Bajalta California (urbanism). Unscintillating (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe the article should be deleted. What I meant was if the article was kept, I would disagree with your proposed move. Any clarification needed could be made in the first sentence, as "concise titles are generally preferred." --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess that means that you still consider the term to be a neologism, even after the secondary sources I documented. If the title is not moved, then my !vote is Keep. Unscintillating (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination.--Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (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.