Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles County Sales Tax, Measure R (2008)

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. J04n(talk page) 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles County Sales Tax, Measure R (2008)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

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

Localized bill with no effect outside the immediate county Delete Secret ^account 21:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The bill has no effect outside Los Angeles, the article itself has no contribution to the encyclopedic value of WP, the article is also restricted on info because it has a limited coverage by external sources, there is nothing more that can be added into it. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - It is absolutely absurd to delete this article. Measure R received over 2 million votes and has been among the most contentious political issues in America's second-largest city. The bill has enormous ramifications for all of LA County (nearly 10 million people) impacting land use, transit, and environmental issues. There is plenty that can be added to this article including a discussion of the evolution of local transit issues and the measure's impact on construction projects. It should also be noted that there are many wikipedia articles on local ballot mesures that impact much smaller constituencies.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which are? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and most of those probably meets deletion guidelines as well. Secret ^account 23:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article about legalizing marijuana in Arizona for one. LA County's population is larger than the entire state of Arizona by about 4 million people. In fact every single article linked to this article should be less notable than Measure R, considering they all effect a much smaller number of people. That goes the same for any article about ballot proposition in dozens of states.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "The bill has no effect outside Los Angeles"...which is one of the largest cities in the world. The LACMTA is the third-most ridden transit agency in the country. There is enough referencing in this article to pass GNG, and even more sourcing is out there. There is also too much in this article to make merger an option. Oh, and all the stuff Jkfp2004 said. p b p 22:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds of bills that are proposed in Los Angeles, and many other cities and states that affects millions of people, but simply don't affect the area outside it in any impacting way. Bills that affect local transportation is a common thing, and this measure doesn't look no different the rest of those bills that happen in every election. The only thing how this would meet GNG was if it had a wider affect on the state and nation as a whole, which I don't see any evidence of. Secret ^account 23:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all this is not a proposed bill. It was a voter approved proposition that is now law. Secondly, there are many articles which have little impact on outlying areas but meet GNG because of their importance to the local area affected, such as the Proposition 65 article. The standard being held for this article is beyond the standard for almost any other piece of legislation. Even if this imaginary standard was the correct one, this article would stil meet GNG as Measure R was instrumental in ensuring the success of the state's High Speed Rail project, and represents a nationwide shift in attitudes about mass transit and urbanism.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Secret, you have to ask two questions:

Does it pass GNG?
Is there significant coverage that would preclude a merger?

If the answer to both questions is "yes", than the only policy-based vote is Keep. The preponderance of bills/measures/propositions you cite above don't pass GNG. This one does. I'm not seeing why national impact is required for GNG p b p 02:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Well can you provide sources outside the LA Times that provides further evidence of the notability of this measure? Secret ^account 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, there are already sources outside the LA Times that are IN THE ARTICLE. I can pretty clearly tell that, while WP:BEFORE isn't mandatory, it is encouraged, and you haven't done it. Had you done it, you would have found that it passes GNG even more than it currently does p b p 21:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh... I did see the sourcing before nominating, WP:AGF, other than the LA Times two sources is the bill themselves, one source is a dead link from a typical Press Release magazine on transportation, the last source is clear WP:ROUTINE coverage that states that voters are ready to vote on the measure, that is not indication of notability. Secret ^account 00:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article now contains additional references from the Huffington Post, LA Daily News, NBC Southern California, and the Pasadena Star-News. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage found in multiple reliable sources. Please see those from the LA Times, and elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have pointed out, this isn't just some small insignificant village with a small population. This is something that affects millions of people. It has gotten sufficient coverage. Dream Focus 13:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. I have updated the article and added additional references, demonstrating significant coverage from multiple (and not just local) publications. Note to above discussants: coverage is the point here, not the fact that Los Angeles is a big county. I also added the result of last November's vote on extending the measure (couldn't any of you eager "keep" voters from the Article Rescue Squadron even be bothered to do that?) The name, however, is inappropriate - overly long and messy. Looking at the style for similar articles such as California Proposition 65 (1986) and California Proposition 2 (2008), I suggest this article be moved to Los Angeles Measure R (2008). --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per keep rationales above, especially those pointing to RS coverage. That, and not an editor's view as to whether it has impact outside its locale, is what matters. As to rename -- not an issue for AfD. I would suggest raising it for discussion on the article talkpage.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2013 (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.