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 no consensus. But clean this article up regardless. Kurykh (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deltopia[edit]

Deltopia (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)

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

I think it is time to revisit this article for being deleted. Back in 2009, there was no consensus, suggesting that it ought to be looked over again to see if it is relevant. I'm nominating this article to be deleted because it fails WP:TRIVIAL with major third party sources, and it is only covered extensively through some local media, which lacks WP:GNG. The local coverage, as DreamGuy mentioned in the previous discussion is mere trivial coverage. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Not sure this AfD has been formatted correctly, @Quidster4040: as it's not appearing on the daily log. In any event, if this is a true AfD nomination, I vote for keep. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Google search will turn up result after result of both local and national coverage. In a quick, 2 second search, I found sourcing from Daily Mail UK, Fox News, CNN, International Business Times, Complex magazine, Gawker, NY Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Miami New Times, and of course more local flavors such as Santa Barbara Independent and KEYT. Easily passes WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like it  Yes, this is a !vote from WP:ATA, and is intended to be refutable by editors who want to maintain this POV sink about alcohol excesses, college rebellion, and litterbugs.  I looked for places that this is used on Wikipedia, and it hasn't been worth mentioning in the articles at either the colleges or local communities.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This topic was mentioned at Isla Vista, California but not linked properly (it linked to the old name, Floatopia), so I just fixed that. Isla Vista is the unincorporated place where Deltopia takes place; it isn't relevant to the articles about the nearby cities. It was also mentioned at Large Emergency Event Digital Information Repository but not linked, so I fixed that too. I want to emphasize, as you acknowledged, that "I don't like it" is not a valid argument - as encyclopedia writers, we are not supposed to pass judgment on topics, but to cover them neutrally to inform our readers. Having few links from other articles also isn't necessarily a problem (WP:ORPHS). Dreamyshade (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the feedback.  I was aware of the "See also" at IV, which seems to mean that I erroneously only searched for "Floatopia".  The two links you've cited increase the value of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR delete without prejudice to anyone who actually wants to come along and write an adequate article on the topic. Regardless of the fact that it technically passes GNG—which it does—this is one of the poorest articles on Wikipedia, and consists effectively of a long list of anecdotes, trivia and incidental mentions, jammed together to create the appearance of a noteworthy topic. Given the time it's existed without anyone making any attempt at improvement, the "someone will improve it if we leave it in place" argument doesn't stand up. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can appreciate the IAR prefix to your vote as the reasoning doesn't follow the current set of policies and consensus. While anyone would be hard-pressed to defend the encyclopedic quality of this article (and I'm certainly not going to defend it!), in my opinion an AfD discussion should determine whether the article has the notability required to justify a standalone article. I believe that in this case, and to your point above, yes it most certainly does pass WP:GNG, which warrants a stand alone article. Again, to your point, I think there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Article-quality or content shouldn't/doesn't factor in to notability, otherwise all stub-classed articles would be immediately deleted for (lack of) content quality alone. GauchoDude (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as all the sources offered as "significant" and "sufficient" are in fact only simple stories and the article as a whole is unconvincing for a both improved and sufficient article. Such common event stories as these have nothing else convincing but the basic event itself. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article can be improved with the many available reliable third-party sources; it shouldn't be deleted just because the current state isn't very good (see WP:RUBBISH, WP:NEGLECT). This topic has substantial coverage from regional news, including the Santa Barbara county press and San Luis Obispo county; topics don't need to be of substantial nationwide interest to pass WP:GNG. And it has coverage outside central California - the 2014 riot was covered by Associated Press, noted as a large college riot in this list, covered by the LA Times in this article and several others. From 2013, a related death reported by Bay Area news. Note that you can find more sources by searching for "Floatopia" (the previous name), such as a LA Times article in 2010 and this NBC Los Angeles article in 2010. I believe this Wall Street Journal article about San Diego discusses Isla Vista as well, but it's paywalled so I can't see it right now. It's also part of this article giving context to the murders in 2014. Regional public radio covered it in 2015. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Update: the 2014 riot was also covered by CNN and NPR. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Concerns about tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. See also: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and analysis since no one else has: I see that each single of those are simply for the event itself, so WP:NOTNEWS applies, because even the simplest ones are simply general stories about it; the fact this event itself has only occurred a casual 3 times (2010, 2011 and 2014) shows it hasn't been consistent enough and in fact, the latest ones were everyday stories. Had there been a larger significance here, that would've been different but this overall has a better form of being in another article. WP:GNG is not a policy, and WP:NOT in fact is, where it says "Wikipedia is many things but it is not a newspaper", which is the case here. Since sources have been offered, I examined them each time but I still see nothing but general journalism, of which is not an automatic factor of notability here. We also cannot copyedit something of which has not occurred again, which is why it wouldn't matter since there's no meaningful changes to be made (event has not happened since 3 years ago, put aside the few recalling news the year after it). In fact, the article itself has nothing but simple general information about each time it happened, thus WP:NOTNEWS still applies as we're not an event gazette. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The current article says Floatopia/Deltopia happened in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014. Deltopia also happened in 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016, not mentioned in the article yet. The 2013 Deltopia had a balcony collapse that injured several people. Floatopia also happened in 2006 as a smaller event. Overall: it's an event that has had 12,000 attendees some years, has been happening annually for about 10 years, has substantial regional news coverage, had a riot reported in nationwide news, and has inspired similar events in at least two other California college communities. There's enough material here for a decent Wikipedia article; Isla Vista, California should have a couple sentences about it, but stuffing much into it would unbalance that article. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's a UCSB student newspaper article from today about UCSB preparing for Deltopia 2017 by planning to spend "$30,000 to $40,000 on advertisements urging partygoers to stay away from Isla Vista during Deltopia weekend". Deltopia involves notable expense from the California public university system as well as the Santa Barbara County police department (with support from other regional and state police departments - Lompoc, Santa Maria, Santa Monica, Ventura, California Highway Patrol). It has regional news coverage every year because it's a topic of public interest. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain status quo, i.e. weak keep - Even if the topic doesn't meet GNG, the topic already meets other parts of WP:notability, like WP:NRV. If it doesn't meet WP:N, then it already meets WP:V#Notability. Somehow, the "delete" comments I see are (implicitly) based on attitudes toward student culture gone running amok. The "delete" arguments convince me that merger is possible, but I can't think of a good target article to merge into. Looking at the intro, the event has been done by UCSB students. The content may still have value. If default to kept, maybe I can ask other related WikiProjects to improve the article. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources brought above by User:Dreamyshade are persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While the article needs a bit of work, enough sources have been found to establish notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an event of local interest, with correspondingly mostly local sources. Reminds me of "First World Problems" -- I doubt this article would have existed if the event occurred in Kenya for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, isn't that more a problem with bias on the part of the sources (which are used to determine notability)? It seems like that's something that should be protested to the biased media organizations, and that it doesn't necessarily affect the article's inclusion on Wikipedia, at least with regard to current policy... (correct me if I'm wrong!) (P.S.: I found this discussion through a Twitter post; not sure if this might be WP:CANVASS-y at all... https://twitter.com/brittagus/status/835583491769192449) —((u|Goldenshimmer))|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "First World Problems" I meant this section: Deltopia#Repercussions. "Legal citations and incidents reports"? Barely enough to make local news on the day of the event, and WP:NOTNEWS applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT (but don't start over). First world stuff and nonsense indeed, User:K.e.coffman, and a regrettable reflexion of the notion that if it involves students at a prestigious American (or British) university getting drunk, we need an article about it. Kind of the silly side of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. I don't know about Kenya, but there are at least two similar yearly events not a hundred miles from where I live. I hope they don't have articles.. now you've made me afraid to look. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 26 February 2017 (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.