Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghostown, Oakland, California


 * 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, well-timed improvement, even the nominator changed to vote keep. @pple complain 17:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghostown, Oakland, California

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non notable made up place. No references indicate its existence. Sounds WP:OR. Chris! my talk 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep: WP:OR. Could be a hoax. Now sourced. - Rjd0060 23:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Change to Keep since the sources have pretty much help the article satisfy the notability criteria no to mention historical neighborhoods are generally notable.--JForget 23:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: No references, and OR. I see some improvements done to the article. Chris! my talk 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a well defined and notable neighborhood in the city of Oakland, California. The nominator may not have noticed that the article title was mis-spelled by the article creator (not me).  The nominator of this AfD may have engaged in bad faith editing by deleting the reliable source of the San Francisco Chronicle immediately before his/her nomination. Anlace 00:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is a historically defined neighborhood, could you get us some good references? Does the city recognize Ghost town? Are there Ghost Town resident associations, etc? Google gives too many spurious hits for ghost town for an outsider to do it easily. MarkBul 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hint: learn how to use Google better. Try "ghosttown oakland" as search terms. Obviously, if you type in "ghost town" you're going to get hits on everything from Bodie, California to stories about haunted fictional places. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Still you have provided no references to this article. And the reference I deleted is disputable and hardly a reliable source as no link is provided. You seem to be engaging in bad faith editing by removing a PROD tag without significantly improving the article. Also misspelling of article name is irrelevant to this discussion. Now I begin to see some references. Chris! my talk 01:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the refs provided, not sure if it's enough though. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: It is an actual neighborhood, and therefore not a hoax, but it is certainly not an "officially recognized" neighborhood of Oakland. You won't find it on any maps. (By way of contrast, check out this very nice neighborhood locator maintained by the Oakland Museum of California; notice that there's no Ghosttown there.) This is one of a number of articles recently created here of these unofficial neighborhoods of Oakland, which all seem to stem primarily somehow from hip hip culture. This casts a lot of doubt on the "encyclopedic" nature of such articles. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The above comment is factually incorrect. Reference 6 of the subject article clearly shows that the city of Oakland officially recognizes this neighborhood in name and by the grant funding proposed to be allocated to the Ghosttown neighborhood. Anlace 05:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is now well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The Chronicle is a reliable source, and if they feel they can refer to the neighborhood without even having to explain what and where it is to their readers, then it's clearly in common usage. The newspaper referring to a neighborhood by a name is pretty much an endorsement of that name.  Wikidemo 18:11, 29 September 2007 (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.