Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floatopia

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, defaulting to keep. There seem to be split opinions about local coverage proving notability or not – however, based on each reasoning, there is no consensus to delete as non-notable. Jamie^☆S93 12:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floatopia

This is an event of only local importance that does not merit an encyclopedia article of its own. Perhaps it should be mentioned in the UCSB article, but there is not enough notability for it to exist as a standalone article. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 18:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just saying that all university trends aren't necessarily non-notable by default, we have FA's, such as Aggie Bonfire, on school traditions. ceranthor 22:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Aggie Bonfire has had quite a bit of national coverage. This event, however, appears to only be mentioned by local news sources - implying, at least to me, that it is an event only of local significance. I did find one mention on the LA Times page, but it was on a travel blog section - and I don't trust newspaper blogs as much as the papers themselves. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that your relying on the nonexistant Local Clause. Just because the paper is in the same area, does not mean it is not a WP:RS. Why must something receive National coverage to be Notable? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for setting me straight, but I did mean what I said. I did not cite a "local clause," but rather made a statement about the notability of the subject in question. Local news sources for a local subject do not, for me, meet the threshold of significant coverage. Why? Well, in my med-sized town we have you would find local stories on events held by local churches on any given weekend. Some of those are also picked up by other local papers. Should we write articles about those events? Somehow, I doubt that the potluck held at St-Mary's-by-the-gas-station is exactly a notable event; nor are the many other small local events covered by my local daily. If they got picked up by other papers with different readerships ... maybe. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe a "potluck held at St-Mary's-by-the-gas-station" managed to draw 12,000 participants, let alone have an affect on anyone other than the few who did attend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.65.177.21 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons for retention: Clearly this was of more than local importance considering it gathered a crowd of over 12,000 attendees. UCSB has 18,892 undergraduate students, many of which participated and all of which received an email on the topic of Floatopia from the University Chancellor. Furthermore, Floatopia was so influential that it is being imitated by other colleges throughout California, including Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and SDSU. Additionally, this event flooded many central coast news stations, newspapers, and became a prevalent topic of discussion amongst college students throughout California. This event affected all residents of Santa Barbara and all visitors drawn to Santa Barbara beaches considering they were exposed to the mass amounts of debris left over from Floatopia. Legal counterparts accumulated an estimated $20,000 in cost that will affect all tax payers in Santa Barbara County. As a direct result of Floatopia, a potential alcohol ban on all IV beaches which will affect all of those who attend them Jgoldasich (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Only local importance" doesn't wash as a deletion reason; many if not most of our articles (in some cases like transportation and geography, close to 100%) are on topics of only local importance. The existing article amply demonstrates repeated non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. – iride scent 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Local only coverage is an example of trivial coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 23:41, 21 May 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.