Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platinum Triangle, Los Angeles (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy Keep as nominator is withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Triangle, Los Angeles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is about an "informal name" for three neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Each of the articles regarding these three neighborhoods (Bel Air, Holmby Hills, and Beverly Hills) already discusses this "informal name" when talking about their respective neighborhoods. Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't need an article that concerns only the nickname, particularly given that the nickname is already discussed in the articles about the places themselves. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about ISBN 9780767932653, the entire book on the subject that was put forward at the last AFD discussion? Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't follow. The last AFD (which took place roughly 8 years ago) concerned a challenge as to the notability of the subject matter and the lack of reliable sources. I'm not arguing that the nickname is made-up or not supported by reliable sources. My point is simply that it doesn't make sense to me to have a page dedicated solely to a place's nickname when said nickname is already discussed in the article about said place. And I think this position is exactly what WP:NOT#DICTIONARY is directed towards.
- For example, searching for "Bean town" redirects to Boston, as it should. We don't have a separate page called Bean town for good reason, and I'm not sure why we'd want one. DocFreeman24 (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, not that it matters but the book that you're referencing isn't about, say, the nickname itself or its origins or anything like that. It's just about people buying mansions in that area. So, I really struggle to see its relevance to this discussion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because you do not understand the very policy that you are waving. Go and read what Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says about the difference between a dictionary article and a stub encyclopaedia article, then the relevance of a book about the Platinum Triangle to an article whose subject is the Platinum Triangle should become more apparent. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm going to ignore the snarky comment on policy, which I really think misunderstands my position.
      But I think we should be clear on the book because what you are expressing is not accurate in my view. The book is not "about the Platinum Triangle" name as you suggest. The book, which is entitled "Unreal Estate: Money, Ambition, and the Lust For Land in Los Angeles", is about "sixteen great estates" constructed in the 20th century in four neighborhoods in Los Angeles (see the "Cast of Characters" introduction available at the "Look Inside" option on Amazon). One of those four neighborhoods (Beverly Park) isn't even part of the Platinum Triangle according to our article. And, based on what I can see through Google Books, the phrase appears a handful of times throughout the book with no meaningful discussion regarding the name itself. As far as I can tell there is, for example, zero discussion of where the name comes from, who coined it, when it came into use, how it has been used in popular culture, etc. If we're going to have a page exclusively about a nickname, then we need sources that tell us useful information about the nickname, not the area itself.
      Otherwise, as I have suggested throughout this discussion, the better course is to address the nickname in the pages regarding the neighborhoods themselves as is already the case. If there is such a plethora of information about the nickname itself that can support a standalone article (as is the case with, say, the Big Apple), then let's have the page then. But right now, it's a two-sentence stub with one cite and it's been that way since 2007. I'm not saying we can't have stub articles that define something. But at some point, we must acknowledge that not every "informal name", as the article calls it, should have its own standalone page. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You clearly do not understand the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. Go and read it! It tells you that encyclopaedia articles are about the people/events/concepts/places/things that their titles denote. Dismissing a book about the place out of hand because it doesn't tell you the coinage of the name is absurd. Sources about the area are exactly what are needed. An entire book about the area in an article that is about an area would appear to be precisely on point, and this book tells you that it is about the area, explicitly naming it, on the first page of its introduction. It tells you that "movie and TV people were latecomers to the Platinum Triangle". It tells you that it is a "distinct psycho-geographic unit". It tells you that it isn't the shape of a triangle but "looks more like a broccoli flower". It tells you that the Triangle's founding fathers "were descendants of fur trappers, Forty-niners, railroad builders, ranchers, and oilmen", and that the Kitchen Cabinet were "all Platinum Triangle residents". And this is only getting partway through the Introduction. Go and read the policy and the book. Uncle G (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say "it's a two-sentence stub with one cite and it's been that way since 2007." That is not exactly correct. Yes, it is a two-sentence stub - now. But when the previous AfD was closed as “keep” in 2013, it was expanded to a reasonable “start class” article with four references.[1] A month later an IP stripped it back down to a two sentence stub. That butchering of the article was in effect an overturning of the original AfD. I'm going to restore the version that was kept at the previous discussion, and THEN we can talk about whether to delete it or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @DocFreeman24: Please take another look at the article and re-evaluate its status. It is now back to the version that was kept in 2013 but stripped down a month later. It is no longer "just a definition" but includes published information about the neighborhood itself and five references including a book specifically about it. The fact that it is mentioned in other articles is not a reason why it shouldn't be an article in itself; most Wikipedia article subjects are mentioned in other articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I checked several versions in connection with this nomination but didn't see this more expanded version. I'll withdraw the nomination since I think this version is a much closer call. DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2021 (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.