Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AkosSzoboszlay/Expressways in Santa Clara County

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep. The user continues to work on this page, which was created less than three months ago. Ruslik_ Zero 17:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

User:AkosSzoboszlay/Expressways in Santa Clara County

 * Conoming User:The Bushranger/Santa Clara --Admrboltz (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content..." See: Expressways in Santa Clara County (CSD'ed as G4) & Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System. The "article" is extremely POVish and is part of the user's fringe theories as detailed on his personal page linked to from his userpage. Admrboltz (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will relocate after final proofing, by Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2011. I was on vacation and before that Christmas held me up finishing my input. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete anyway. I see no way this can be turned into a viable article despite the creator's promises. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement by Admrboltz that this is "user's fringe theories" is contradicted by the historical fact that all city councils repealed all bicycle prohibitions. In addition, shoulders with bike lane standards, in addition to sidewalks, are required along these roads. One cannot claim action taken by 100% of city councils is "fringe." AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ten Pound Hammer. The primary author of the original articles, and the owner of the sandbox has a WP:COI as the officer of an advocacy group on the issue, and the author of several of the sources. I can't remember the exact policy, guideline or essay (but I will look it up later), but one of them says that if a subject is notable, someone else will write or start the article. Please add User:The Bushranger/Santa Clara to this nomination as well. It is an untouched sandbox of the first deleted article. The user page initially nominated above is a version of the second deleted article.  Imzadi  1979   →  21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Being an officer of an advocacy group -- which I stated on my User page -- does not disqualify me from writing for Wikipedia. After the city councils voted as us advocates requested, it becomes historical fact and is no longer an advocacy issue, nor is it controversial. For example, after a public vote on a ballot measure, are the vote results and the implementation of that vote suitable for censorship in Wikipedia by those who disagreed with the vote result, and lost?  Furthermore, I can put all this information onto a web site which already exists. It's not that we need a "free web host," but rather, that Wikipedia is a nice forum for information.AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish to continue to push a specific point of view, please do so on your own website. It is a conflict of interest though to cite your own writings and organization on a page you're writing. From the COI policy: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. " You are adding material from your organization's website with furthers that organization's interests. From the Self-cititing section of the No Original Research Policy, "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality and conflict of interest policies." Your organization's website has not been considered a reliable publication. From the COI page again, "It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article." You are a participant in the disputes about the expressways. You should not be writing the article content on those disputes.  Imzadi   1979   →  22:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As a follow up, the editor appears to be a single-purpose account in looking through his contributions, which extend only to this sandbox, the previously deleted articles, his user page with few contributions to other articles. This only furthers my lack of a good feeling about neutrality in his editing. If this subject is truly notable, others will be willing to write the article, and find significant secondary sources, like newspapers, magazines or TV reports. Most of the sources used are primary sources (meeting minutes, statutes, legal opinions, county documents, or articles written by Mr. Szoboslay) and only one press source from a reputable news outlet. And yes, you do have a benefit as an officer of the group to writing the article. Unchecked, the article can reflect viewpoints and given such weight that enhances the reputation of your organization, whether or not that enhancement is deserved or not.  Imzadi  1979   →  02:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom.  Dough 48  72  03:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd forgotten I'd copied that page to my userspace. No need to worry about it, I'll db-author it. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Deleted. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Many references to City or County documents are made. This should have been sufficient to meet Wikipedia's criteria of citing sources. However, I wanted anybody to also see them if they want to, for whatever reason, without the hassle of going there in person or writing a letter for a document request. Where the referenced items were not posted by the City or County to the internet, I scanned and uploaded them to the internet, and provided a link to those documents in the reference, appending this to the normal referencing citation. This is going beyond what Wikipedia requires. For performing this added service, I am accused of citing my organization's web site, which is where these documents are located on the Internet. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're accused of citing your organization's webpage where you use the group itself as a source, and not merely a hosting service. The fact that it is an advocacy group though does color the fact that you're hosting the work of others, but that's a secondary issue not in discussion here. A second issue though is that the article, as composed, may not meet the general notability guidelines in that it does not have "significant coverage in secondary sources". City, county and advocacy group documents are all primary sources. Newspapers, magazines, tv, radio are all secondary sources, because they are one step removed from the subject. Imzadi  1979   →  02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For about five years, there was a Wikipedia web page about these eight roads that only mentioned facilities for motor vehicles on these roads, and their history, and had photos of traffic lanes and motor vehicles. Without deleting anything, I added the history of non-motorist users of these roads, and added photos of bicyclists and pedestrians and their facilities. Apparently, this ticked off some who seem to think that roads are only for motor vehicles, and wanted no mention of, nor photos of, bicyclists and pedestrians using these roads. This will not change the fact that these non-motorists will continue to use these roads. However, when the information about them is censored, it will be appear that they do not exist for the readers of that Wikipedia page. Which is what the censors want, for some reason. (In the past, it was for political purposes, to make it easier to prohibit non-motorists, but that side has consistently lost in the votes that occurred.) The evidence that this is what is really occurring is that all photos of bicyclists and pedestrians using these roads, and photos of their facilities, were censored off of Wikipedia (last year). The censors can make all sorts of phony claims why the text should be deleted, but not one claim why the photos of non-motorists should be deleted from an existing Wikipedia page that already had photos of motor vehicles using these exact same roads. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not censoring anything. I am demanding that the article conform to Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, conflicts of interest, notability, reliable sources and verification. The last does not require that a source be online, just that it exist somewhere and be available to verify the claims and information in an article. I don't know what your claims of removing the photos are. They're all available on Wikimedia Commons. Commons is a centralized location to host photos and other media that are available to all language variants of Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wikisource, etc. Once the photos were moved to Commons, they'd be deleted from the English Wikipedia, but they are still available. (This deletion prevents the possibility that information on the photo, or the photo itself are updated locally and the updates are not made available to all of the sister websites.)  Imzadi  1979   →  02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring to photos in the article itself (not the Commons) that were deleted by somebody (not you). All photos containing a bicyclist, pedestrian, bike lane, sidewalk or bus stop were deleted from the article. The photos that only showed motor vehicles were kept. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the claim of not being notable is shown false by the fact that there is one Wikipedia pages for each of these roads (see links in section List of Roads). These were not deleted, probably because there is no mention of non-motorists. The page that describes all of these roads, adding common features, history, future (approved plans), and administration information, cannot be less notable than one individual road among this group of roads. In other words, it is not consistent to claim these individual roads are all notable by keeping their individual Wikipedia pages, while claiming these exact same roads are not notable just because information was added about non-motorists and non-motorists facilities. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The notability concerns are not on the individual roads, but on the notion that they are a system. The article at issue is on this purported system, not the individual roads.  Imzadi  1979   →  02:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no disagreement with your point here; that's why I changed the title, and modified the contents, to reflect that. The former title was actually selected by someone else about 5 years ago. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This "article" has a long way to go to satisfy those concerns. None of which you have addressed in your sandbox. There are myriad problems that were pointed out along the way on style, formatting, content, sources, neutrality and verifiability. The most egregious example File:SanTomasExpy-$149-ticket.png and it's caption: "San Tomas Expy; Bicyclist was given a $149 ticket for momentarily getting off the bicycle, thus violating the "Pedestrians prohibited" signs, according to police. Photo from 2006." Unless I'm assuming wrong: 1) as the photographer, you were the bicyclist. 2) You were the recipient of that "alleged" ticket because we don't see another person int the photo. 3) We have no way to verify that he was writing a ticket or the fine attached to the ticket. He could have been logging a warning, or issuing a written warning. 4) Whole sections of the article are undue weight. These are mostly the sections related to your advocacy, which is a WP:COI. Once all of the issues are excised from the article, there will not be enough left to survive a merger discussion, except that most of the mergeable content is already in California County Routes in zone G. Having said that, we've both said enough. We should both stop talking and let the others weigh in.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like, I can scan the ticket, upload to Commons, and place a link to it. It's no longer advocacy because sidewalks were approved along both sides of San Tomas Expressway in 2009 by the County Board of Supervisors, and are in the process of being built. A half mile is already complete. The bicycle prohibition was repealed in 1991. It's actually history, at this point. The photo was from 2006. I added this photo because there were local people that also expressed doubt that police would ticket people for bicycling or walking along a shoulder that meets bike lane standards, along a 45 mph arterial road. They did, and I get several tickets, and know of other people who were also ticketed. AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Was clearly nowhere near "indefinite" so that reason is out. Editor is working on page, and that is one of the specific encouraged uses of userspace. Collect (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - My initial reaction was to iVote delete. However, on review, I changed my mind. Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System was closed 14 December 2010. The closer at Articles for deletion/Santa Clara County Expressway System noted, "There appears to be POV problems on both side of the debate from what I can see, as well as possible sockpuppetry on both sides." The basis for the AfD deletion was "a subject which does not meet notability/NPOV criteria." A new article was G4ed on 21 December 2010. The above listed MfD page was created on 23 December 2010. The date being 1 February 2011 does not make that "indefinite", so that reason is out. Also, the material is currently being worked on and is related to encyclopedia editing. Per "What may I have in my user pages?," you may have "Drafts, especially where you want discussion or other users' opinions first, for example due to conflict of interest or major proposed changes." Per FAKEARTICLE, "short term hosting of potentially valid articles under development or in active use is usually acceptable." As far as i can tell, AkosSzoboszlay has never been blocked. The user space draft seems a good way for AkosSzoboszlay to generate talk page discussion or obtain other users' opinions to overcome the issues noted at AfD. Keep and relist at MfD on or after May 1, 2011 if not moved to article space. AkosSzoboszlay: Between now and May 1, 2011 (three months from now), you may want to post a request at Deletion review asking for a consensus to recreate the article based on the draft you have been working on. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Users are explicitly allowed to work on articles in their user space. This is an article that is actively being worked on, with the explicit goal of bringing it up to standards and being moved to the main space.  If the article has sat here without substantial improvement next February, by all means delete it as a stale draft.  Mr Gamal is right when he quotes our policy on userspace: "short term hosting of potentially valid articles under development or in active use is usually acceptable.". That's exactly what this is. Buddy431 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: By User-Editor.  AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: actively being worked on, therefore invoking WP:STALEDRAFT is wrong (the guideline is also stupid, but that's another story). Whether the current draft is acceptable as an article is not the point. We have a user in good standing attempting to write an article on maybe a notable subject. It was deleted at AfD, but that is no reason that they should not be able to work on it in their userspace. -Atmoz (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.