Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavender Heights, 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. ff m 15:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lavender Heights, California

Non-notable pseudo-location. Seems to be a neologism - see a google search that turns up 435 hits, mostly wiki-copies. Would suggest merge, but the page seems to be entirely a directory or guidebook. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found some references in the Sacramento Bee, NPR and LA Times: [1]. It's enough to confirm there's something by this name in Midtown Sacramento, but it's unclear if this is an official designation or just a nickname some people have for part of Midtown Sacramento. If it's the former this probably deserves an article, but I'm assuming it's the latter, so merge to Midtown Sacramento. --Rividian (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lavender Heights is on SN&R literature and is the known name of this location. rkmlai (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (of Sacramento)[reply]

SN&R? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento News & Review, locally known as SN&R.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a distinct "gay village"district in Sacramento. Like The Castro in San Francisco, it isn't an "official" municipality, but sources like the Sacramento Bee frequently refer to it as specific neighborhood that's the center of the city's LGBT community. [2] --Oakshade (talk) 08:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia's notability requires "significant coverage from multiple third-party sources". As far as I can tell, people are putting up links that mention the place by name, but don't give it "significant coverage" - unlike The Castro, which has books, news, and websites about the place. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware of WP:NOTABILITY and I'm also aware that the wording is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic." (the word "multiple" is not included in guideline.) Even the CBS 13 piece is significant coverage by a reliable source in addition to the Sacramento Bee pieces.--Oakshade (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - wait a minute. Are you seriously considering a video of less than one minute (in which the reporter says "Fabulous" in a lisp at least four times for no reason) to be significant coverage? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is significant. Television shows/reports are considered reliable sources and in this case, beyond WP:N's scope of "trivial," whether a reporter says "Fabulous" with a lisp or not. (more than a minute, btw) --Oakshade (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only significant if it's actually *about* Lavender Heights. The piece is less than a minute (when you take out the news anchors wind-up) about how to revitalize a neighborhood. The only thing the piece actually says about Lavender Heights is that it's been revitalized. And that it's fabulous. If you want a laugh, I recommend watching it - it could not be considered "significant" by any stretch. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched it before my first comment. As WP:NOTABILITY defines "significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." "Less than exclusive" means the sources don't have to be exclusively *about* the topic as you are claiming. The CBS 13 piece news piece shows in detail of how Lavender Heights has been improved. It goes in depth about the neighborhood, even in its minute. "Trivial" as defined by WP:NOTABILITY is a "passing mention" or a "directory listing". Even by your critical description, it goes beyond the scope of either of those. --Oakshade (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My gut feeling was that while this neighborhood is well known in Sacramento, it probably wasn't known outside the area. However, a gnews search comes up with the neighborhood being called this in the LA Times, Seattle Times, and even NPR. Works for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought. Merge/redirect to Midtown Sacramento also works for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Lavender Heights", keep, and mark as an informal place-name. To me the title syntax "Lavender Heights, California" suggests an official city name. --Lockley (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (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.