Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliso Village


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Aliso Village

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a neighborhood, but simply a defunct housing project that is mentioned in only one reference. Not Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Boyle Heights, Los Angeles. There seem to be a variety of sources, but they are behind a pay wall. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This AfD is flawed on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. Fist of all, "not a neighborhood" and "defunct" are not reasons for deletion.  The nom contends that this topic is "mentioned in only one reference."  If by "mentioned" they mean very in-depth coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG, then yes, it was "mentioned" in a source.  Then nom then claims this topic is "mentioned" in "only one reference."  It not only took a couple seconds of searching to find an incredible amount of coverage on this historic project,  (the creation of an AfD takes much longer than a couple of seconds), but the searching came from the links provided by the nom in their own AfD.  The sources also show this was the largest housing project in Los Angeles that came from the Housing Act of 1937.  This AfD is a textbook example of even cursory adherence to WP:BEFORE not being followed. --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable housing project in Boyle Heights, passes GNG. There is one source counting to GNG in the footnotes. I'm also seeing 25 uses of "Aliso" in THIS JSTOR journal article, Sophie Spalding, "The Myth of the Classic Slum: Contradictory Perceptions of Boyle Heights Flats, 1900-1991," Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 45, no. 2 (Feb. 1992), pp. 107-119. No, it doesn't pass a special guideline as an inhabited town or discrete population center, but it does pass GNG as a notable housing project. The article is decent as well, not that that matters, although maybe it should... Carrite (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable. The sources presented above User:Oakshade alone (above) prove that this topic meets WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.