Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange County LAFCO

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange County LAFCO[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Author has COI. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The commission appears to be notable, in that it receives a fair amount of significant news coverage [1]. However, this news coverage is not reflected in the current article. The current article is basically a bureaucratic screed about the agency and doesn't even say how it is funded or how the commissioners are chosen, much less describe the historic changes that have taken place according to the news articles from the 1980s and 1990s - such as the commission's expansion from the original five members to the current eleven. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The agency is notable as it has a major impact on unincorporated areas in Orange County, California. For example, the annexation of Sunset Beach by Huntington Beach that received significant press coverage such as this was a result of the actions of LAFCO. 72Dino (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Alternatively, stubify. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:09, 4 December 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.