Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequoyah Heights, Oakland, 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 speedy keep. Nomination was disruption by blocked sockpuppet. EJF (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoyah Heights, Oakland, California

Unreferenced, not notable Cholga^talK! 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as places are always notable on WP even if it is a small location, village or area. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 13:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note, this is a neighborhood, the article Oakland, California for the city, and East Oakland, Oakland, California for the division of said city already exist, this article is redundant and unnecessary.Cholga^talK! 16:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See a Google News archive search [1], which shows lots of coverage of the neighborhood. Satisfies WP:V and perhaps WP:N. Please check for the availability of references before nominating articles. Edison (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The status of numerous Oakland neighborhoods is currently a hot topic around here, with many articles on them proposed for deletion. As I've stated on a number of those articles' talk pages, I have proposed a guide to whether a neighborhood article should be included here or not. It's a web page maintained by the Oakland Museum of California which shows districts and neighborhoods in the city. Since this tool has been created by an official local institution that is credible, I believe it can serve as at least a starting point to determine inclusion. So far as Sequoyah Heights goes, it's one of the neighborhoods shown in the maps there, so that's a pretty good argument for its inclusion.

I'd also like to point out that this proposal for deletion comes from an editor currently under investigation for major sockpuppetry, and that this nomination was probably tit-for-tat retaliation on account of the many worthless articles created by, or contributed to, by this editor which have been deleted. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator should be careful not to conflate "unreferenced" with "not notable" as this is not always the case. RFerreira (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Niaz -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Subject seems notable. Nomination is by a confirmed sockpuppet, whose recent deletion spree was part of the abusive behavior that got him indefinitely blocked.[2] Wikidemo (talk) 18:16, 1 March 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.