Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascade County, Washington

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 redirect to List of U.S. county secession proposals#Washington. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade County, Washington[edit]

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

This should have been deleted as a non-notable organization db-a7 and a repost of a previously prodded article. There's still zero reliable sources establishing any notability for the cascade county "movement" which consists of a website, Fails wp:org. Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's much too soon for an article about this proposed new county (organisation???). Adam9007 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect [was "Keep"]. Or perhaps it's rather late for Wikipedia to start an article about this oft-proposed county. As for High Desert County, California (also recently under AFD pressure), the separation of rural, underserved areas from urban-dominated counties is a recurring idea. The Cascade County name is a good one and has been used for the 1973 proposed secession of part of Kings County. Sources include, for example, this 1973 article about the petition drive ongoing. The separate secession drives can be covered in one article now. Do the searches. Was wp:BEFORE performed?

IMHO, it is okay/good to restart an article, after a topic has been prodded, at least if some work is done to develop it, hopefully differently than before. But speedy deletions and prod deletions happen all the time without people having the chance to develop an article, so sometimes it just makes sense to start with the previous version (as I gather happened here, is that correct, that it is an identical copy?) Anyhow here we are, and the topic is valid I believe, so just help develop it.

In fact, IMHO the previous prod deletion was wrong, because it would have been better to redirect the topic to List of U.S. county secession proposals#Washington. And, if the general sentiment in a full AFD turns towards re-removal of the article, again it would be highly preferable to redirect the topic rather than outright delete it (for various reasons including that the next re-start can be based on the previous work, available to all, and that credit is done properly by including the previous version in the edit history). --do ncr am 01:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating from "Keep" to "Redirect" as no more sources have turned up about the new initiative. I added a bit to the article about the 1970s initiative using the same name. Redirect would allow this stuff to remain in edit history, for an article to be revived if/when substantial new sources emerge. --do ncr am 08:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Unless it comes to referendum or even passed accepted petition, this is still a 'dream county' proposal among many the US has seen over the years.~~ Nate • (chatter) 06:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Redirect to List of per 331dot and doncram; I knew there had to be one somewhere but I just forgot the title of our secession proposal article. Thanks for the link articulation. Nate • (chatter) 16:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of U.S. county secession proposals#Washington if there are reliable sources about it(not just this group's website). If this has been covered in the media, it does warrant mentioning somewhere, if not its own page yet(which, as stated, can be when this actually if ever gets voted on). 331dot (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This rural area does seem under-served in Wikipedia: There are articles for only 2 high schools in Kittitas County, currently, while there are 7 school districts so presumably at least 7 secondary schools. And two of the three school districts in the Cascade County proposed area lack articles: Cle Elum-Roslyn School District and Easton School District are redlinks while Thorp School District is a bluelink, currently. To @MistahRigoh:, the Cascade County article contributor, perhaps you could start articles on the districts with redirects from their high school names, or also create high school articles? These would be accepted immediately as valid Wikipedia topics as it is pretty well established that any secondary school, and any school district, are valid topics. And mention of secession initiative at those articles might well be appropriate. --doncram 09:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd worry less about what is under and over served and more about whether sources exist or not. Without good sources, nothing can be done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The area does need more coverage, but that is not relevant to this discussion. Sounder Bruce 23:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 331dot. It would be able to stand alone had the proposal reached greater notoriety (like Skykomish County, Washington), but it doesn't look like the current proposal will get that far. Sounder Bruce 23:48, 5 March 2016 (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.