Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Children's Services


 * 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 needs cleanup, but AfD != cleanup, notability isn't the issue here Tawker (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

California Children's Services

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notable, even tho a single state. But entirely promotional in style:i t exactly resembles what the program might want as a press release.:No outside sources--everything is from the department.

Talks only about their success, not on any lack of success--one would assume all the programs did 100% of what they were supposed to. Emphasis on exact eligibility requirements--these details are relevant only for prospective enrollees,not general readers. Talks about details of funding and exact differentiation from allied programs in bureaucratic detail, listing each state code section. Some things are missing: information about the basic question of how the services are actually delivered: do they fund existing health service, fund new ones, provide specific programs, provide health care directly;  public acceptance, or any information showing uptake or effectiveness.--but those are probably the main things the public might want to know.

The distinction between encyclopedic writing and promotionalism is that promotionalism writes about what the organization want to say, but encyclopedic  writing is about what the public might want to find out in an encyclopedia.

Finally, written in bullet points, not paragraphs, and ending in a optimistic but out of date section about prospects for the future.  DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator directly stated the article is notable. The main basis for deletion is that the article does not include all relevant pieces of information, which is an issue that should be solved by adding the needed information. All of the issues listed can be fixed through editing.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * speedy keep, this article is well referenced. incomplete information IS NOT a deletion criteria.  → Lil- ℧niquԐ 1 - {  Talk  } -  22:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Notable, sourced.  DGG, i like your seeking to have articles improved, but shouldn't this just be tagged for improvement.  I'm not sure how you can bring it to general attention.  Perhaps a post at WikiProject California?  But then most WikiProjects are pretty dead now.  It is not for AFD participants to do the improvement, though. -- do  ncr  am  17:00, 7 April 2014 (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.