Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Rodman Arboretum

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 Pitzer College#Campus. (More) content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 19:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Rodman Arboretum

John R. Rodman Arboretum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created in 2005 that fails WP:GNG; only one source (a trivial mention in the L.A. Times), and only 3 Google News results, all very trivial mentions. I've merged everything worth keeping into Pitzer College (on whose campus the arboretum is located). Sdkb (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting the 2018 merge discussion which one against and no support. My key concern is that of Recentism; the formation of the arboretum in the 1980s seems to have been contentious, and newspaper (and other) sources from the time are likely to have significantly more coverage. Just hard to find, I think. Klbrain (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: Are you characterizing ElKevbo's comment as the one against? That wasn't at all what they expressed, and no one else commented on the merge proposal but you (as closer). Sdkb (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; to quote ElKevbo: The arboretum article does seem to be missing some basic information (e.g., history) so it may be a better idea to expand that article so it's clear that it stands on its own. I was closing as an (at that stage) uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your selective quoting has the effect of mischaracterizing and is concerning. Here is the full quote (with emphasis added): I have no strong opinion on this proposal - sorry! I have no particular expertise with arboretums (not even enough to know if that's the correct plural) or articles about them. This is already a rather long article so I don't think that the arboretum article could be merged into this article without trimming it down considerably so the question may hinge on whether that could be done while still presenting all of the necessary information about the arboretum. The arboretum article does seem to be missing some basic information (e.g., history) so it may be a better idea to expand that article so it's clear that it stands on its own. Sdkb (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pitzer College. I found nothing on newspaperarchive.com and only several passing mentions from the 2000's on newspapers.com. Nothing to indicate notability now or in the past. According to this it was established by an academic on Pitzer's property so doesn't have an independent history.----Pontificalibus 14:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's at least one good LA Times articles on the place: [1], though there was a second but it was just a passing mention. Honestly expected there to be more. A merge would be a good result here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.