Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Trans Pet Cemetery
- 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 Speedy Delete G7 by User:Willking1979. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cal Trans Pet Cemetery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not news KuyaBriBriTalk 17:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not news.
- It was the subject of the keynote address by the president of the Association for Engineering Geologists in 2003, which is six years ago.
- It was a news story in 2007, 2 years ago.
- The "Cal Trans Pet Cemetery" received international news coverage as such, and is cited by the Association of Engineering Geologists as the singel biggest example of "junk science" in the courts by its former presdident.
- "Cal Trans Pet Cemetery" is the name given to any government pollution scandal, based on the severity of the pollution problem.
- "Cal Trans Pet Cemetary" is cited at hearings before Boards of Supervisors around the country.
- I am a new editor. Please give me guidance as to why this story is not significant enough.
- Perhaps the entire article should be moved to the Cal Trans article, but compared to Cal Trans itself, it is small, but for major government pollution scandals, it is big. Please let me know what you think is best. I think it should be a small section in Cal Trans, and a big one in its own article.
Thank you . HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Going with Delete here. To HkFnsGNA, there is a note on your talk page welcoming you to Wikipedia - you'll find some guidelines on how to create an article. In the meantime, I hate to say it (for fear of sounding like I'm coming off biting the newbie above), but the long and the short of it is that the article is best stricken and started over. Not the best form at all, and comes off initially sounding WP:COATRACKish. Furthermore, citations need to be better, and to be frank, the above statements need to be backed up with evidence. I hate to say it, but being a native Californian (and a road geek at that) and not hearing about this, it raises my eyebrows. If anything I'd be for userfying the article for the new guy so he can work on it in background and then later repost it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (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.