Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reynier Village, 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   speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Reynier Village, Los Angeles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim of notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  03:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to South Robertson, Los Angeles - Needs significant improvement, but does appear to be a distinct neighborhood of Los Angeles, at least to some degree. See, , , etc. There might not be enough to write a separate article, in which case it should probably be merge/redirected with the larger neighborhood. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - cleaned it up a bit; added a couple of references. Stalwart 111  06:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I previously found all the sources which have been placed in the article as well, but they do not convince me that this place exists. Let's take them in order.  First, the Reynier Village Association is formed in 2005 per their website.  They have photos of signs on their streetlights marking their neighborhood.  These are *not* official city signs, they're just something the neighborhood council gives permission to put up.  Second we have this 2006 article from the real estate section of the LA times.  Note first that this is right after the neighborhood association was formed, and so when they would have been pushing the hardest to get the name into use.  Note also the equivocation of the author, who says "Real estate agents have long described the area as "Beverlywood adjacent" or "south Robertson," but the name Reynier Village is starting to catch on. Activists have revived the Reynier Village Neighborhood Assn., an informal group that alerts residents to developments by e-mail and distributes fliers about meetings and other happenings."  This proves that it's the neighborhood association that's pushing the name and that no one else uses it.  See how sceptical the reporter is? If even Los Angeles real estate agents and their boot-licking side-pocket reporters for the LAT Real Estate section are reluctant to use a name it casts even more doubt on its reality.  Those people manufacture neighborhood names while they're driving to the supermarket just for kicks.  Furthermore, it seems that it did not catch on because there are no mentions of this place in the media at all after this article, with one exception that I will now consider.  Finally we come to the 2012 KCET blog source.  Aha! one says, this is from 2012, so it appears as if the name is catching on.  However, note that this is in the KCET blog, and that the blog post is *sponsored*, i.e. it is not editorial content, and furthermore, that the sole sponsor of the South Robertson section of this blog, which the Reynier Village section is a subpage of, is the South Robertson Neighborhood Council. The SOCO is an quasi-official city/private group that the RVNA is a member of, so the blog is not an independent source.  If anyone outside this boosterish neighborhood group or their financial had ever used the term without qualification in the last 7 years I'd be much more OK with it, but they have not.  Even *they* couldn't get it into print between 2006 and 2012 and they're spending money trying to do it.  By the way, there are also two mentions in other papers, not worth listing, where a person is described as a resident of the place.  Both are from 2005/6 as well, so I assume that they founded the RVNA, tried to get other people to call their subdivision that, and failed.  Thus, delete.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The neighborhood does seem to exist and to have some notability. The article has been substantially improved since being nominated. A full article in the Los Angeles Times, by a staff reporter, is halfway to notability all by itself - whether or not we accept the reporter's motivation or tone in writing the article. One more such source and I would change from Weak Keep to Keep. Also, note that the Reynier Village Association was "revived" (per the Times article) in 2005, rather than invented at that time; clearly the name predated the revival. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now believe it should be kept. More sources indicate Notability. As for "boot lickers" (above), Martha Groves was a general-assignment reporter (though she seemed to concentrate on the "better" areas of the Westside) and she did not work for the real-estate section, to my knowledge. The piece by Yosuke Kitazawa was, yes, sponsored (revenues have truly fallen for KCET and the Times), but he is a staff writer and I believe his report was vetted in the editorial chain of command and not through the advertising department. Check out these links. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh— I stand by my view that this is not a real neighborhood. However, I have no wish to argue the point with my esteemed colleagues and will therefore strike my delete so that the nominator may withdraw the AfD if he now wishes to.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:35, 27 May 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.