Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Speaks


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

California Speaks

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seems like a single event with limited ongoing impact so looks like it might not meet WP:LASTING. The refs appear to be WP:ROUTINE and more than 90% of the page is not sourced and therefore per WP:V could be removed. JMWt (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics,  and California. JMWt (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep, as this appears to have been a collection of forums around the state, rather than a single discrete event. BD2412  T 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair, although it does appear to me to be an event on a specific date albeit spread around various venues. JMWt (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable conference. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a selective Merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article suffers from extreme first-hand reporting, and so much shouldn't be kept. Given that this appears to have marginal notability at best, it might be able to be handled by a limited merge to Health care in California. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY (and move to CaliforniaSpeaks). I have nearly finished rewriting the article completely; it's still very much a work in progress but much better than before. Anyway this was not "just a conference" and there has been WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the event in many academic journals subsequently. Most in-depth is Esterling, Fung and Lee (2015), "How Much Disagreement is Good for Democratic Deliberation?", Political Communication 32(4):529–551, which focuses on CaliforniaSpeaks and also happens to be widely cited. I also liked Lee, Caroline W. (2015). Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry. Oxford University Press. pp. 182, 204–205, 210. CaliforniaSpeaks even got a sizable footnote in James S. Fishkin's When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford University Press, 2011. And of course there are a ton of newspaper articles like this 2007 one in Fresno Bee. The above just scratches the surface for sourcing and there already are several other good sources if you look at the article now; in any case it's enough to keep the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * merge I support selective merge to Health care in California. There are so much fluff and unencyclopedic trivia like "There were more than 440 professionals who volunteered as table facilitators on the day" that should be omitted. It's borderline notability, and short enough that it's best served with merge and redirect. Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep but consider restructuring: has improved the article to the point at which I'm landing at keep (albeit on the weaker side). I think, however, it would be a much stronger article if the article were reworked/renamed so that its topic were actually on the bill being discussed (which is not named here nor the aftermath well-covered). The start would be expanded from the current background section, the CaliforniaSpeaks consultation process would constitute much of the middle, and the end would feature the bill's passage through the house, financial analysis, and subsequent death in the Senate. (yes, any such decisions can be dealt with at the Talkpage; no, not volunteering) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems a failure of WP:10YT no lasting notability. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh, keep. "no lasting notability" makes no sense, Simonm223, given that there was an academic article published about it eight years later. That article already makes it halfway-notable. If the books by Lees-Marshment and Fishkin and Kahn (no preview--thanks Google) indeed discuss the actual subject of the article, then we're easily past GNG, and AGF basically requires that we assume that these books do that. So that's "keep", already. Having said that, stuff like this may add to the background, but it won't add to notability, and "At the end of the event, AmericaSpeaks handed out postcards" really does not add to the encyclopedic quality of the article. Also, no, don't merge or rename this unless the books/academic article suggest that. AmericaSpeaks, as an article, is a promotional piece of crap. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This won't get long term coverage, and could probably find a place as a paragraph in a more appropriate article (I don't know which) Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2024 (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.