Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cypress Village, Oakland, 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, article has been expanded and improved during AFD and nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress Village, Oakland, California

I have nominated this article because the article does not assert its notability. Furthermore articles for neighborhoods have a requirement for the neighborhood to have a neighborhood council or be widely known. Cypress Village is certainly an area in Oakland however the neighborhood itself is West Oakland, Oakland, California. This article is basicaly about an unotable public housing area in West Oakland. It is evident from the one minor reference and no external links that this is not a legitimate neighborhood. For these reasons I nominate this article for deletion and merge any worthwhile content into West Oakland. The article's only reference is mention of a rapper from these projects mentioned in passing in a minor newspaper. Icamepica (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note sockpuppetry concerns, below and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. Wikidemo (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn housing project. JJL (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above.Icamepica (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the title of the article? Redirect to the West Oakland neighborhood article. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nothing, but arbitary blanking and redriecting may be seen as vandalism. Moreover iys highly inlikely someone would search for such a contrived search. Cypress Village should link or redirect if this article is deleted however.Icamepica (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm having trouble confirming the current status but this was an all-black housing project established in the public housing era (post-WWII) and has a history extending back before the J Stalin issue arose. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate it because of J Stalin, that would be silly. Its a serious nomination. Perhaps if it is historical as you claim you should add that to the West Oakland article. But also a housing project is NOT a neighborhood.Icamepica (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and keep in view of sock puppetry / meatpuppetry on this and other articles. The neighborhood is clearly notable, and the nominator's claim (that neighborhoods need their own local council to be notable) is apparently made up. There are dozens multiple independent reliable sources that describe this housing project. I don't really have time to deal with this nonsense right now given the sockpuppetry issue, but if you want sources you can look through this. Wikidemo (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dozens? please. that is a google search, which mentions some projects. not a neighborhood. the neighborhood is west oakland. some projects or an apartment building or complex is not a neighborhood, it is a parcel! It is not made up, i read it on here before i have asked for help in finding the policy on neighborhood notability. please assume good faith. Article remains unsourced.Icamepica (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dozens among the articles pulled up in a rather restrictive google search. There is already bad faith concerning this article and the issue, so WP:AGF does not apply. This is not the right time to be having a deletion discussion over the article given the meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry afoot, which is why it should be speedily closed. It can be re-opened another day once we deal with the trolling and can have a real debate among legitimate editors. Wikidemo (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of articles about the "Cypress Freeway" if you think thats what this article is about then merge it with that article. What bad faith? Good Faith should always apply. This nomination is candid and in perfectly good faith in the support of a good encyclopedia. What sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry? Those are very serious accusations which may be viewed as disruptive editing. WikiDemo it seems like you think you WP:OWN this article and any article you like that is put up for deletion. What trolling? There is nothing but legitamte debate here. You have no policy arguement here wikidemo. Please use one and don't be an egg.Icamepica (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your manners and don't make accusations against me. The sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry issues are real and uncontroverted. The only question is who specifically is involved. Dealing with trolls is not the same as owning an article and if you understand the terms you're throwing around you know the difference. You are following in the footsteps of the abusive sockpuppet owner, using the same tactics on the same issues on the same articles. It is definitely best to close this AfD down until this is all sorted out, and approach this later if a fair argument can be made that the subject is not notable. Wikidemo (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What accusations did i make? All i said was that you seem to be taking this too far, trying to close any debate on the deletion because you think someone is trolling on here. There is no vandalism on this page. So i feel you are being a bit paranoid. I am? What user is that?24.180.37.2 (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My speedy speedy deletion / keep opinion is strictly that the content is encyclopedic and should not be removed by sockpuppets. Any closure should be without prejudice to the question of whether the content is best in its own article or whether the various West Oakland housing projects should be merged into their own article or article section - something we can make as an editorial decision outside of AfD with the sockpuppets gone. Wikidemo (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Merge w/West Oakland. Yes, it's a real place, but it's non-notable in the sense that it's a microscopic piece of a small neighborhood. It's basically a housing project; doesn't deserve its own article. Integrate into West Oakland article. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to West Oakland, Oakland, California. The Johnson 1996 ref and the fact that it was one of four all-black segregated projects at the time is worth keeping somewhere. However, while individual neighbourhoods and even individual housing developments may be notable, this one appears to be merely verifiable, not notable. See searches: [1][2][3]. cab (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar treatment should be applied to some of the other articles listed at West Oakland, Oakland, California#Neighborhoods too, in my opinion. cab (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree (though I am not convinced West Oakland the only/best article to merge into because it will get very long; perhaps a new article about all put together, or about the proper sub-neighborhood). As I mention above I think this is an awkward forum to make that merge discussion, so assuming the article is kept and the sockpuppets blocked or banned, we can talk about merging the content outside the pressure of an AfD. Wikidemo (talk) 02:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to legitimate sock concerns and that the article has six references. R. Baley (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

references are not reason alone for keeping, they must establish notability. The references only establish verifiability but does not meet WP:N.Icamepica (talk) 09:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's referenced and notable enough for now, and I think the overwhelming concerns of sockpuppetry are enough to give it a pass. Snowfire51 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes claims of notability supported by reliable and verifiable sources, even ignoring the abusive sockpuppetry issues. Alansohn (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but also for consistency. We should either keep all of the notable West Oakland neighborhood articles, or delete all of them. No point of deleting one but keeping the others. Bash Kash (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does not appear particularly notable in its own right. It would make more sense to move anything useful to the West Oakland, Oakland, California article. David D. (Talk) 07:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable. It has sources and references now to prove it, keep. Izzy007 Talk 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why is it notable and which reference asserts that notability? I don't see it. David D. (Talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting past the test for notability (publication in reliable sources, which it passes), the underlying reason it is notable (in my subjective opinion) is because it is a place where a lot of people live that figures into the history of migration, race relations, politics, and economy of the bay area. The story of that project, from a middle class white neighborhood, to black migration during and after the war, to government-enforced segregation in the 40s and 50s (which surprises people on the West Coast), so-called "white flight", worsening conditions, drug crisis, the cypress freeway disaster right in front of the project and then a decade and a half of local politics leading to some respect and civic improvement, and art out of the project in the form of rap and hyphy culture, is a very emblematic one. Understand the history of Cypress Village (which I don't yet, I'm just getting started) and you understand a lot about urban America. That doesn't necessarily prove it deserves its own article, but it does say that the material is worth having somewhere on the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being published in a reliable source does not make something notable. It is one compontent only. And everything you mention happened in West Oakland, Oakland, California. In fact, in Oakland, California.

Also, while the history you mention is interesting which reference actually puts it that way? The ones cited mention cypress village as a location only. Your interesting account above appears to be original research, so unless there is a reliable source for this social commentary it may not be acceptable for wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why it's notable, not for proof. The proof is fully satisfied by pointing to multiple independent reliable sources. Nothing more is needed. But to understand you need a general knowledge of things. The housing project is notable because it is at the core of, emblematic of, and in the context of the broader social history. I don't need to source that. But if you must know, the statements about Cypress village are all from the sources cited in the article. Wikidemo (talk) 07:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for proof. You have sources that verify the name exists. I asked why your version of its historical importance, the basis for your notability argument, is not original research? David D. (Talk) 04:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question one generally answers on a talk page. People bring their general knowledge of a subject to bear when discussing things. Sourcing is for article content. Anything specific to Cypress Village is from the sources. I can assure you that anything more general about white flight, segregation, city politics, etc., is also from reading published sources, only I can't tell you exactly what book or newspaper article I read a year ago or ten that forms the basis of my understanding of the world.Wikidemo (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (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.