Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twomps (Murder Dubbs), 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. W.marsh 16:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Twomps (Murder Dubbs), Oakland California

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Look like WP:OR, the entire article is lack of references Chris! ct 06:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC) ct 02:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename (Making "Twomps" a redirect to "Murder Dubbs" or vice versa) or Merge to East Oakland, California. There are reliable sources that this very violent neighborhood is known by these names, e.g., the San Francisco Bay Guardian.  --Hyperbole 06:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge as above. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Surprisingly it is better sourced than the East Oakland, California article, which only has two references for the whole article, before I added one for Twomps. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please explain why we should keep this. The East Oakland, Oakland, California article being unreferenced is irrelevant. Chris!
 * Comment Its not irrelevant, you just don't see the relevancy. You want to delete this article because it is underreferenced, and merge it into an article with even fewer references, its an example or irony. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you really think that the article East Oakland is unreferenced, you can improve that article. I see no reason for us to discuss this here. Chris! ct 23:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While I question the propriety of creating an AfD 41 minutes after an article has been created, and while we seem to have another violation by a nominator of deletion policy, the article at the point the AfD was created had no references. The article as it stands provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish an appropriate definition for the area and to establish notability. Alansohn 04:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. I nominated articles for deletion by judging its notability or its encyclopedic-ness, not the length of time between creation and nomination. Please stop suggesting that I have some kind of agenda to delete every articles I see and focus on the reasoning behind each deletion. As other has pointed out before, I don't need to be put on trial for nominating articles for deletion. Please also noted that the articles when I nominated is not reliable referenced. The article is reliable sourced after some improvements is done. Chris! ct 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You do need to observe deletion policy, yet have provided no evidence that you have performed the required due diligence to research, edit and improve articles *before* the forced march to AfD. As stated above, I agree that there were no references in the article. Again, lack of references is a great reason to use a tag like "refimprove", but is an extremely poor excuse for deletion. Now that the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources, it's time to dip into that deep well of good faith and acknowledge that notability has been satisfied. Alansohn 12:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I already acknowledge that notability of this article is now satisfied in my last comment. I see no reason for me to repeat. As for the deletion policy, note that the policy is just reminding editors that there are alternatives to cleanup other than deletion, but it never disallows deletion as the way to cleanup Wikipedia. Chris! ct 23:27, 8 November 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.