Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Estates, Los Angeles


 * 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   redirect to Exposition Park (Los Angeles neighborhood). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

King Estates, Los Angeles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not Notable. Not listed in Mapping L.A. or in the Thomas Guide. Simply a real-estate development. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The article shows a photo of an official city sign identifying the neighborhood. I couldn't find much in a search, but apparently the city thinks it is a real neighborhood, not "simply a real-estate development". --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some City Council member succumbed to the blandishments of a group of homeowners, probably a small group. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete. A municipal sign installed by order of a City Council member is not a good source. We have to be aware that:

"'Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. . . . Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include [materials] that are promotional in nature. . . Primary sources . . . must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.'" GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find enough references to support notability. The LA Times "Mapping LA" says King Estates is part of Exposition Park (Los Angeles neighborhood) so it could be Redirected there. I'd hate to see it completely deleted since it does get at least a little recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect, as per MelanieN. Grande (talk) 19:12, 24 July 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.